1951-03-09

PRIVILEGE


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, in reference to a statement made last night by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). When I was speaking I read from bound Hansard a certain sentence. The debate on the point last night was as follows:


Mr. Gardiner:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are you sure you are reading the sentence as it is in the Hansard that you have, or is there a period in the middle of the sentence? Are you reading the sentence correctly?


Percy Ellis Wright: It does not make a particle of difference to the meaning.


James Garfield Gardiner: It makes all the difference in the world.


Percy Ellis Wright: Not a particle.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are not reading what is in the book.
I wish again to read what is in the book, first in bound Hansard and then in daily Hansard, because the Minister of Agriculture implied that there was a difference between the bound and the daily Hansard. Here is the sentence as it is in the bound edition:
The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause,-
Comma.
-and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned.
Period.
We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
Period. That is as it is in the bound Hansard.
In the daily Hansard that was circulated to the members, this is the sentence as it was read:
The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause,-
Comma.
-and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned.
Period.
We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
Period. They are exactly the same in the two Hansards.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not. There is an "and" in one and a "comma" in the other. They are not the same in the two publications.


Percy Ellis Wright: Exactly the same-comma and period; they are exactly the same in both.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they are not.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would ask the minister to withdraw the inference that I was reading something that was not in the book.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made no inference whatsoever. I had not seen the bound Hansard, and I asked the hon. member to give me information as to whether they were the same in both. Now that he reads them I find they are not the same in both.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept that. They are exactly the same in both of these, as I have read. And I want to say this, that in the twenty years I have been in public life I have never heard anyone who could talk so much about a subject and avoid telling the truth about it, as the minister does.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are a lot of people who do not agree with you.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow this debate between hon. members to continue. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that he made no improper inference, and the matter should be allowed to drop.



ADJUSTMENTS IN PAYMENTS UNDER EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Douglas Abboll (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), I wish to make a statement regarding gold.
Hon. members may recall that on December 27 last, a delegation representing the gold mining industry in all parts of Canada came to Ottawa and made representations to the Prime Minister and a group of his colleagues. These representations related to the prevailing difficult conditions in the industry resulting from the increasing cost of production in the face of a fixed price for the industry's product and included recommendations for various changes in legislation or policy designed to assist the industry in meeting

Gold Mining Assistance Payments the prevailing conditions and to avoid the closing down of mines with the hardship this would cause to a number of small northern communities largely or wholly dependent upon such mines.
As a result of the consideration given to these representations, the government had decided to consult with the international monetary fund in regard to arrangements which would make it possible for the industry to have access to premium markets for gold similar to the arrangements which the fund had agreed upon in the case of South Africa. To this end discussions were initiated with officers of the fund preparatory to the submission of a formal proposal to the executive board of the fund. We were then informed that the fund's staff was currently studying the situation arising out of the recent sharp increase in sales of gold in hoarding markets and had already decided to request the board to give urgent consideration to the whole question. Accordingly, the Canadian government was requested to defer the submission of a formal proposal pending this general review by the board. As a result of this review, the executive board of the fund passed the resolution which was made public on March 7.
For the convenience of hon. members, I think it would be desirable to place this resolution on Hansard. It reads as follows:
Since the amount of sales and purchases in the world markets of gold for jewelry, artistic and industrial purposes has recently been increasing at a rate indicating that at least a part of it finds its way to private hoards, contrary to the gold policy of the fund established in June, 1947, the board considers the existing arrangements and practices of several countries, including South Africa, are no longer a satisfactory basis to implement the fund's gold policy and directs the staff of that fund urgently to elaborate, after consultation with the countries concerned, more effective methods than the existing ones.
It appears from the resolution that the board considers the existing arrangements and practices of several countries, including South Africa, as no longer a satisfactory basis to implement the fund's gold policy. The Canadian government has endeavoured in this, as in other matters, to observe its international responsibilities, and in the case of its gold policy has had in mind the interests of establishing orderly international monetary arrangements and the maintenance of a sound position for gold in the future. Because of the desirability of close co-operation in many fields with our partners in this international emergency, and in the light of the new resolution passed by the fund, the government has decided not to alter the Canadian gold sales policy for the time being at least.

In view of this decision, the government has given further consideration to possible adjustments in the payments to be made under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act with a view to making some modifications which should more effectively assist the industry in overcoming the special difficulties with which it is confronted in the present circumstances.
It is now proposed to broaden the formula for the calculation of assistance payments during the calendar year 1951, which was announced on October 25 last by my colleague, the then minister of mines and technical surveys. This announcement stated that the government would introduce legislation at this session of parliament under which the rate of assistance in 1951 would be one-half of the amount by which the average cost of production per ounce of gold produced from any mine exceeds $22, provided that in no case should the rate of assistance exceed $11.50 per ounce. This rate of assistance was to be applied to the number of ounces of gold produced by a mine in excess of two-thirds of the number of ounces produced during the base year 1949, or one-third the number of ounces produced during 1951, whichever was the larger.
Under our present proposals no change will be made in the rate of assistance I have just described. However, it is now proposed that this rate of assistance will apply to the number of ounces of gold by which the number of ounces produced from the mine in the year 1951 and sold exceeds one-half of the number of ounces produced in the base year 1949 and sold. In no case, moreover, will the assistance payable be based on less than one-half the number of ounces produced from the mine during the present year and sold.
I do not, of course, wish to anticipate at this time the detailed explanation and discussion which my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will wish to give the house when he introduces the proposed legislation. All I need add at this moment is that this modification in our gold assistance formula has been discussed with the fund, which has raised no objection.
In conclusion, may I express the belief that the new program which extends the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act on a modified basis to the year 1951 will be of further assistance to the industry generally in meeting rising costs of production and will enable the continued operation of many mines in northern communities wholly or largely dependent upon them.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 131, respecting a certain patent application of George R. Hanks.-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can inform the house whether Russia is leaving the United Nations and setting up a rival organization?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have no information on the matter. I have read in the press certain reports and predictions to that effect, but there is no evidence that I know of to confirm them.



CANADIAN ARMY SPECIAL FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I sent to the minister last Wednesday. Are officers of the special force being encouraged to join the active army before proceeding to Korea, and if so, what conditions of service have they been offered?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: I regret that I have not received notice of the question, so may I take this as notice?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 77, respecting the department of defence production.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and
Canadian Wheat Board Act the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds, may I say to the house that I have had some difficulty deciding whether the amendment to the amendment is in order. I have not yet come to a definite conclusion on this matter. From time to time the question arises in the house as to whether a motion involves an obligation on the part of the government to make an expenditure of money. Of course, if it does involve such an obligation on the part of the government, it is obviously out of order.
The amendment to the amendment proposes to amend the amendment by adding the following words:
It being the opinion of this house that consideration should be given to a final payment of twenty-five cents per bushel.
There has been a practice established in this house that private members may, by giving notice of motion framed in abstract and general terms, obtain the opinion of the house on matters involving the expenditure of money, or requesting that the government take into consideration the advisability of making such expenditure. It occurs to me that the situation might be different on the second reading of a bill. Although the words "that consideration should be given" are in the actual amendment, does that mean in practice that the government would be required to make the expenditure?
As I say, I think there is a difference between a private member's motion and a motion on second reading of a bill. If any hon. members would like to express their opinions on this subject, I should be glad to hear them.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say I have not looked up all the precedents that one might find-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to answer the point you have raised, for after all, there has not been time to do so, but by consulting the notes on procedure that I keep in my desk I find there are a few references-


Mr. Sinclair:: Beauchesne, fourth edition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -which I should like to call to your attention. First of all, citation 444 of BeaUiChesne's third edition consists of two paragraphs that I should like to read. I point out before doing so that the first paragraph deals with private members' motions that would seem to involve the expenditure
1078	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act of money indirectly. The second paragraph deals with an amendment to a government piece of legislation. Your Honour has suggested that in your view there may be some difference on that score. I do not see how that distinction can be drawn as long as the wording of the amendment to a piece of government legislation makes it clear that it is expressing only an abstract opinion. Let me read citation 444. It is as follows:
Private members may introduce resolutions that do not directly Involve the expenditure of public money and have no operative effect but simply express an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant.
Note the second paragraph, which reads:
An amendment-
In other words, an amendment to government legislation.
merely asserting as an abstract principle the expediency of a larger expenditure than that recommended by the crown in resolutions can be proposed, such amendment being moved mainly to prevent concurrence in the resolutions and having no practical effect with regard to public moneys unless the said increased expenditure is recommended by a new message from the crown.
It seems significant to me that those two paragraphs are right together in one citation, one of them dealing with private members' notices of motions and the other dealing with a motion amending a government measure.
I would also ask, Mr. Speaker, that you note three Speakers' decisions. They are lengthy, and I will not read them in full. One of them is reported on page 537 of Beau-chesne's third edition, a decision given by Mr. Speaker Rhodes on March 16, 1921, which reads:
Private members may introduce resolutions when they do not directly involve the expenditure of public money and have no operative effect but simply express an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant.
The two or three pages that follow that introduction indicate that the ruling was with reference to a private member's notice of motion. The same is true in the case of a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Sproule on February 1, 1912. You will find that one beginning on page 529, but if you will turn to page 519 of Beauchesne's third edition you will find a ruling by Mr. Speaker Cockburn, the introduction to which reads:
An amendment merely asserting as an abstract principle the expediency of a larger expenditure than that recommended by the crown in resolutions, can be proposed, such amendment being moved mainly to prevent concurrence in the resolution and having no practical effect with regard to public moneys unless the said increased expenditure is recommended by a new message from the crown.
If you will turn to pages 520 and 521 you will find that this amendment was moved by a Mr. Wood back in 1869. He wanted certain words left out and other words put in which
fMr. Knowles.]

expressed the opinion that such and such should not be done without at the same time making provision for increasing in due proportion, and on principles alike just to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the amount of debt allowed by the British North America Act to the late province of Canada, and so on. Further down on that page the Speaker, in giving his decision, said:
The motion of the hon. member for Brant is a mere assertion of an abstract principle. Beyond that, it proposes nothing; it does not propose to take any step in the direction of legislation, but, on the contrary, . . . the effect would be, if passed, to prevent concurrence in the resolutions, and to stop the whole proceedings-so that the question on this proposed appropriation could not be approached again, this session, unless a message came down from the crown recommending such additional expenditure. Therefore, I think the argument unsound that this amendment involves a question of additional public expenditure, and, in my opinion, the motion is in order.
The point I ask Your Honour to consider is that that ruling bears directly on the point Your Honour has raised. For my part, I cannot see the difference between a private member's notice of motion and a private member's amendment to government legislation so far as the question of involving an expenditure of money is concerned. Here is a clear-cut case where the amendment by a private member was to a government piece of legislation, and the Speaker ruled that, since the wording made it clear that it was abstract and did not have operative or legislative effect, it was in order.
I point out that the wording of the amendment to the amendment moved by my desk-mate, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), is clearly in abstract form. It is governed in the first place by the wording in the earlier part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), which merely says that further consideration of this bill should be deferred until consideration has been given to such-and-such. Then my colleague's amendment proposes the addition of the words:
It being the opinion of this house that consideration should be given to a final payment of twenty-five cents per bushel.
If I were to take more time, which I will not, I could point out to Your Honour several cases in which motions were allowed which did not even include the word "consideration," because it was clear that they simply expressed the opinion of the house. My colleague's amendment not only uses the words, "it being the opinion of this house," but goes on to say merely that consideration should be given to the proposal indicated in the subamendment.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of the proper wording of my colleague's amendment, and because of the citations I have called to Your Honour's attention, particularly the words of Mr. Speaker Cockburn as recorded on page 521 of Beauchesne's third edition, I submit that the amendment to the amendment is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for bringing these citations to my attention. The one bearing on the point I raised is a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Cockburn in 1869. It is possible that there have been no rulings since that time bearing upon the subject.
I am aware of the fact that a few amendments similar to the subamendment now before the house have been permitted to stand. However, I am not convinced that such subamendments are in the same class as a motion framed in abstract terms by a private member asking for the opinion of this house. The amendment to the amendment does use the word "consideration", but I am inclined to think that if it were carried it would require the government to make the expenditure before the house would give second reading to the bill.
However, since there seems to be some uncertainty about it, and since apparently similar motions have been permitted in the past, I do not intend to rule the amendment to the amendment out of order at this time. I would like the house to note that I am not convinced that the amendment to the amendment is in order, and would ask the house not to consider me bound on any future occasion by what I am now doing in permitting the amendment to the amendment to stand.


Percy Ellis Wright: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your decision to permit the subamendment to stand.
Last evening when I was discussing this matter I was about to point out that the farmers of western Canada were not basing their claim for a greater payment than the 83 cents the government has announced upon whether there was a period or a comma in a particular sentence the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) might have spoken in this house. Their claim for some further consideration under the "have regard to" clause has a much broader basis than that.
We also had some argument yesterday as to whether any final agreement was reached on the "have regard to" clause, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that when he vas in England in May he did not reach any
Canadian Wheat Board Act final agreement with the British government but that he brought back a report to the cabinet. He stated yesterday, at page 1072 of Hansard, "I reported that position to them"- that is, the position taken by the British government. "The decision, if there was any decision, was made after I returned." Until we have the minutes of proceedings and the communications between the British government and the Canadian government on this matter we are not in a position to say definitely whether the cabinet reached a decision and accepted the position the British government had taken with regard to the "have regard to" clause. That is why we are anxious to have these papers tabled at the earliest possible moment. As a matter of fact we should have had them before this discussion took place. Then we would be able to reach an intelligent decision based upon the actual documents that passed between the two governments.
Another reason we believe we are entitled to a further and larger payment than 8 [DOT] 3 cents is the fact that for two years, from 1945 to 1947, Canadian consumers were supplied with 160 million bushels of wheat at $1.25 a bushel, when the price received under the British contract was $1.55. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made quite a point of the fact that the average price at which wheat was sold outside of the British contract over the five year period was $1.82 a bushel. That low average only resulted from the fact that through the wheat board the Canadian government sold 160 million bushels to the domestic trade in Canada at $1.25 a bushel, which was below the price under the British contract and which represented a loss to the wheat producers of western Canada of some $48 million.
Many people will say that many other producers in Canada were in the same position during those years; and I want to point out that those were years after the war was over, 1945 to 1947, when we were selling this wheat to the Canadian consumer at $1.25 a bushel. There were restrictions on the people selling lumber, steel, pulp and other materials. But I point out that so far as I know there was no other material in Canada over which the government had taken complete control. In no other case did the government take all the product and then go out and sell it in the name of the producers. The people who produced pulp, steel, lumber or other products were given a free hand under the ceiling prices that may have existed. They were able to sell their products within Canada at whatever they could get for them under those ceilings. Most of the ceiling prices were removed in 1946 and 1947, and they were allowed to sell their products in the Canadian
1080	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act market at the highest prices they could obtain. They were also permitted to sell the share of their products they were exporting at the highest prices they could obtain in the export market, not under a contract such as we had with Great Britain, which to all intents and purposes placed a ceiling on the price.
These are some of the reasons why people in western Canada believe they are entitled to a payment of more than 8-3 cents. The government failed to maintain a price ceiling in this country. In this house the Minister of Agriculture stated that the producer was protected under the wheat board act, just as other producers were protected under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Let me indicate just what that meant. The minister stated that in determining the prices for agricultural products under that act consideration would be given to the fact that during the first two or three years of the war agricultural prices in some cases were below the cost of production. When the ceilings were placed on agricultural prices in the fall of 1941 in many cases those prices were below the cost of production, and the minister said that in determining prices under the Agricultural Prices Support Act that matter would be taken into consideration. At page 5624 of Hansard for July 29, 1944, the minister is reported as having said:
I was careful to see that there was nothing In the bill which said that we were going to base any decision on the cost of production. The cost of production may be only part of the consideration. X think it is possible the board might determine that the farmer should have considerably more than his cost of production because of some other experience he has had in order to get through the transitional period in a proper position.
I ask the farmers of Canada to consider that statement. In setting the prices under the prices support act, in setting the final payment under the wheat board act, has the minister given consideration to the fact that in 1940, 1941 and 1942 the wheat producers of Canada were selling wheat for approximately 50 to 60 cents a bushel on the farm? That was approximately the average price for the average grade of wheat for the first three years of the war. I do not think 8-3 cents a bushel represents any consideration of that fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has asked me a question. Does he want an answer?


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not want these interruptions. If the minister has a question to ask, or if he has a matter of privilege to raise-


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has asked me a question. Does he want an answer?


Percy Ellis Wright: -until he asks to have that privilege, I am not going to be interrupted by him as I was last night.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to ask my hon. friend a question.


Some hon. Members:: Then sit down.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just a minute. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has asked me a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
for Melfort has the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the hon. member for Melfort asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
for Melfort has the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: But Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, on a question of privilege?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Melfort has just asked me a question, and it will appear in Hansard as a question asked of the Minister of Agriculture. Unless I answer that question at this point, if it is intended to be a question, the hon. gentleman will go through the country saying he asked the minister so-and-so and the minister did not answer at all. I am prepared to answer the question.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister spent an hour making his statement on this matter, and he covered it fully from his point of view. I want to have the opportunity of covering it as fully from the point of view of the western wheat producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not want an answer.


Percy Ellis Wright: During those three years the western wheat producer received an amount for wheat which was below the cost of production, for which the 8-3 cents being received at this time is not compensation.
I would point out that in setting other floor prices for agricultural products under the Agricultural Prices Support Act the minister has had no regard for the statement which he made in this house when he said that in setting those floor prices the government would have some regard to the prices which the farmer had received during those three years. I ask him if 33 cents a dozen for eggs or 75 cents a bag for potatoes is a price which represents some compensation to the producers for the prices which they received for those products during the first three years of the war. I do not think it does.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do you want an answer?


Percy Ellis Wright: I am quite sure that the farmers of this country do not consider those prices to be a fair return for the sacrifices which they made during the war. It is for that reason that the Canadian Federation of

Agriculture and other farm organizations throughout this country are asking for a formula to be written into the Agricultural Prices Support Act. They want the farmer to have some protection. They have become fed up with waiting for the Minister of Agriculture and his department to give them a fair deal in this matter. That is why the farmers of western Canada are asking for a larger payment than the 8-3 cents at this time. If the farmers had any assurance that over the next three, four, or five years, as the minister stated yesterday, they would get $1.83 per bushel for wheat, they might have some confidence and be willing to accept the 8-3 cent payment. But they have no assurance from this government to that effect. They know that if this government is setting floor prices on farm products the first principle is to set them low enough so that they will stop production of that particular product.
What has been the result of the setting of a floor price on eggs at 36 cents a dozen?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no set price.


Percy Ellis Wright: The result of that has been, Mr. Speaker, that the producers of eggs have discontinued production. Last fall consumers had to pay 80 and 90 cents a dozen for eggs. What has been the result of setting the price of butter so low? The result has been that the farmers of this country have gone out of the production of butter. In certain sections of the country today consumers are forced to pay as high as 80 cents a pound, and the speculators are making a killing if they happen to have any butter in storage. That is the result of the policy of this government. It is time we had forward pricing on agricultural products in this country, and an assurance of decent prices. If that had been done we would not have the fluctuations in our markets which we have today.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have been amused by the discussions that have taken place on Bill No. 5 concerning the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. So far as this party is concerned, we intend, at the proper time, to support the amendments proposed by the bill, which are three in number. The first one is apparently intended to correct an error, and changes the date of the commencement of the pool year from August 31 to August 1. Apparently the error was made when the bill was printed. The second concerns the adjustment of interim payments on different grades of grain. This is necessary because it is impossible to set initial payments at their proper level until some experience has been had by the board in selling those different grades. The third
Canadian Wheat Board Act concerns the transfer of wheat from one year's pool to another. I believe that is one that will be appreciated by the farmers all over the prairie provinces, because it will enable the wheat board to wind up its business year much faster and give the farmers a chance to use their own money rather than pay interest for a year or two on money that rightfully belongs to them but still remains in the wheat board's funds.
I have no intention whatever of chasing through the volumes of Hansard in order to follow up the quotations that the Minister of Agriculture made last night from his own speech. There are one or two items in his speech of last night which I should like to comment upon. The first is to be found at page 1059 of Hansard, in the first column, where he said:
We make all kinds of claims, which I am not going to take the trouble to make here tonight, as to what the result of the inauguration of the policy has been; but I recite this in order to repeat that the farmers of western Canada have absolute confidence in the co-operative organizations that they set up to handle their grain, and there is no kind of argument that is going to be put up by anyone in this house to the effect that somebody has lost a lot of money that is going to change the attitude of the farmers of western Canada toward the system that they themselves have set up. They are going to operate under that system, and anyone making speeches from this house with the idea that he is going to encourage some change by saying that the farmers have lost $300 million or $600 million, as the notion takes him when he is speaking, is wasting his time. I just want to say to them that they had better talk with some of the farmers in western Canada before making such speeches because there is nobody in western Canada that believes them.
In connection with that, lest there be any mistake about where I stand, I should like to say that I joined the Alberta wheat pool in early September of 1923. I was one of the first to sign a contract in my territory. I helped to organize the pool, and I am still a member of that organization. I still have thousands of bushels in the five-year pool, and up to today I believe I have delivered ninety-eight per cent of the grain I grew to the wheat pool elevator. I was a supporter of the wheat board at the time it was set up, and until it was finished after the first war. Had we been allowed to keep that wheat board, there would not have been any need for setting up wheat pools. Because we were denied that right we went ahead and organized our own wheat pools. I want to say that I am a firm believer in the wheat board, and in the wheat pools. While I am a member here it is my intention to support the wheat board. I believe we have an organization that has done a good job for the farmers. So far as I know there are no farmers dissatisfied with the work of the

Canadian Wheat Board Act wheat board. The figures I hope to give a little later will prove that beyond any question.
Then on page 1069 we find this-I am quoting the Minister of Agriculture:
The act may require further amendment from time to time; but in my opinion the farmers of the west have not been convinced that they have lost money under the system of wheat board marketing as compared with any other system.
I agree with that statement; but I am sure that most of the complaint has come about because of a deal that the Canadian government made with the British government, and because of the Canadian government's policy in supplying wheat at below regular price to Canadian millers so that Canadian consumers could eat cheap bread.
As to dissatisfaction among the people in the west-and reference was made to that matter by the minister last night-I am going to read something that was said by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when they appeared here on the fifteenth of last month:
1.	We wish to express our appreciation of the efforts of the government to obtain from Great Britain adequate recognition of the "have regard" clause in the Canadian-United Kingdom wheat agreement.
2.	We wish to point out that the government of Canada has a vital responsibility to see that wheat producers are treated fairly in the final settlement of the five-year pool, because the returns to wheat producers for those years were prescribed by government policy of sale of wheat in the domestic market and by the terms of the contract which the government made with the government of the United Kingdom in 1946.
Our wheat producers feel that balance of the actual proceeds of the sales of wheat during the five-year pool is not sufficient to provide a satisfactory settlement. Our convention was unanimous in asking that a very substantial contribution per bushel should be made by the government of Canada to the final settlement of the five-year pool.
Then again we had statements by the representatives of the three wheat pools at Regina early this week. We know what their opinion has been. Only yesterday the Alberta legislature passed a resolution favouring some worth-while final settlement of this five-year pool. In addition to that, I believe that many hon. members in all parts of the house have received letters and telegrams ever since the session started, pressing for a worth-while settlement of the five-year pool.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a statement the other day-it was on Friday last-in connection with the final payment, people all over the country were greatly disappointed; but I believe no citizen was more disappointed than was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). While the Prime Minister was making that statement
rMr. Fair.]
I watched the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who sat at his right, and the Minister of Agriculture, who sat at his left; and they were not a happy pair. It might seem fitting that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is in charge of that department, should make the announcement; or again, if he did not want to do it, it might seem proper that the Minister of Agriculture should do it, as he had quite a bit to do with the negotiations from start to finish. But perhaps neither of them wanted to make it; it was such a crumb from the rich man's table that neither of them wanted to hand it out, and the job fell to the lot of the Prime Minister.
For many years our Canadian wheat has been sold at prices that have been far below its actual value. Going back to February 25, 1947, we find this stated here in the house by the then minister of trade and commerce in connection with the sale of some of our wheat; and at that time-and in fact even prior to that time, in 1945-we had a ceiling of $1.55 a bushel placed upon our wheat, even though that figure was far below the value of that commodity. We find that the then minister of trade and commerce-at that time Hon. J. A. MacKinnon-as reported at page 787 of Hansard, set out in part a directive to the wheat board, as embodied in an order in council:
Whereas the Minister of Trade and Commerce reports that because of the effects of a crop failure in Australia and French North Africa, of transportation difficulties in various supplying countries, and of other adverse developments upon the volume of exportable wheat and because of the urgent requirements of recently liberated areas of Europe and Asia, world demand for wheat is presently exceeding available supplies;
That under these conditions Canada, as the principal wheat exporting country, is in a position to demand very much higher prices for wheat from importing countries which must obtain food from abroad regardless of price in order to avoid want and starvation and to many of which Canada has been or will be extending loans for rehabilitation and reconstruction purposes.
Shortly after that, we find that an agreement was made with Britain, that negotiations were going on for some time, as also were negotiations dealing with an international wheat agreement. But on July 25, 1946, the then minister of trade and commerce-again Mr. MacKinnon-announced an agreement with the British government. It must be pointed out that this agreement was one between the Canadian government and the British government and was not one made by the Canadian wheat board. Under the terms of the agreement Canada agreed to supply Britain with 160 million bushels out of the 1946-47 crop at a price of $1.55 a bushel. Ultimately we find that deliveries turned out to be 169 million bushels at $1.55;

and during that crop year the average price of class II wheat was $2.43 a bushel. Therefore the Canadian farmers who delivered that wheat had a loss of 88 cents per bushel, or a total of $148,720,000 on that wheat delivered. In the 1947-48 crop year we had agreed to deliver 160 million bushels at $1.55. Actual deliveries turned out to be 170-6 million. The average price of class II wheat during that year was $2.88 a bushel, so that the farmers lost an average of $1.33 a bushel, or a total loss of $226,898,000. In the third year of the agreement, the 1948-49 crop year, when we were supposed to deliver 140 million bushels, we actually delivered 146,342,802 bushels at a negotiated price of $2 per bushel. During that crop year the average price of class II wheat was $2.23 a bushel. Canadian farmers, therefore, suffered a loss of 23 cents a bushel, or a total of $33,658,844. In the last year of the contract, 1949-50, we delivered 140 million bushels; the negotiated price was $2 a bushel. The average price of class II wheat during that year was $2.16. There was therefore a loss per bushel to the Canadian farmer of 16 cents, or a total of $22,400,000. Those four figures total $431,676,844.
On August 14, 1946, when discussing this matter, as spokesman for this party I had this to say as reported at page 4800 of Hansard of that date:
On behalf of this group I wish to say that we are glad to know that we are to have stabilized prices for the next four crop years and also that an agreement has been made with Britain. I am not going to say whether we are well satisfied with the prices received. We feel that the British government are satisfied that they got a very good deal at the expense of Canada. One of my reasons for saying that is contained in a Canadian press dispatch of July 26, which states:
"The News-Chronicle's streamer headline said: Strachey explains wheat deal and M.P.'s cheer Canada."
In my opinion they had every right to cheer Canada. The dispatch goes on to say:
"The Mirror headlined the story: 'Pact makes Britain's loaf safe for four years.'
The Daily Graphic said editorially: 'Our debt to the empire increases every day . . . thanks, Canada, and thanks again!' "
I am glad the people of Britain appreciate that they are getting a good deal from Canada. I might say we have no objection whatever to Canada's supplying the best food in the world to Britain and to other countries, but we object to the farmers bearing the brunt of the expense. On many occasions we have made it clear that the farmers of Canada have not received the price for their products to which they are justly entitled. I still estimate that the same condition continues under the present agreement. Of course we are very well satisfied to have a stabilized price for some time to come, because we all remember what happened after the first great war and we do not want conditions of that kind to arise again; but in view of the losses the farmers accepted from 1930 up to 1942, I feel we are entitled to a much better deal as far as our wheat is concerned. I am not going to deal in particular with the sale to the British govern-
Canadian Wheat Board Act ment. The cost of that will, of course, be taken care of by the government here, and we in turn will have to bear our share of the loss through taxation.
Then at a later time the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), speaking with respect to a further amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, said1 on February 24, 1947, as reported at 746 of revised Hansard:
I believe that the wheat agreement with Britain was fully justified but it does entail in its early stages a considerable sacrifice on the part of our farmers. We feel that the sacrifice should be borne by the people of Canada as a whole, and that is why we are so concerned about the guarantee that the government makes regarding the acceptance of fourteen bushels to the acre, which is supposed to remove the sacrifice from the farmers and place the burden squarely on the backs of the Canadian people.
In addition to that we find that at that time the price of wheat was climbing. There were discussions throughout the country, and some discussion in the house as to losses that might be suffered by the farmers. But we were continually given to understand that the "have regard to" clause of the agreement would take care of that. The "have regard to" clause was referred to frequently yesterday, and; once today. When it came to fixing the price for the third year of the contract it was fixed at $2 per bushel, and did not take into consideration any of the losses that had been suffered by Canadian farmers during the first two years of that contract. It amounted to a loss of 88 cents a bushel in the first year and $1.33 a bushel in the second year, while in the third: year of the contract we suffered a loss of 23 cents a bushel. When it came to negotiating the price in the fourth year, the price was again set at $2, through negotiation between the two governments, and we lost on that 16 cents a bushel, as compared with the price of class II wheat. So that I feel there was no regard whatsoever to the "have regard" clause in. the agreement.
When people were getting anxious about their final payment we were told that final settlement would be made ini the middle of the summer. Before that time arrived we continued to supply to Canadian millers, for consumption by Canadian consumers throughout the country, certain quantities of wheat. In the early part of 1946-47 we supplied 29,041,927 bushels at a price of $1.25. The average price of class II wheat was $2.43, and therefore the loss per bushel was $1.18, which was absorbed by the farmers. Then, late in 1946-47 the price had risen to $1.55. We supplied a further 24,573,939 bushels. During that time the average price of class II wheat was $2.43, and therefore the loss was 88 cents a bushel.
In the first part of the year 1946-47 there was a net loss of $34,269,474, and for the

Canadian Wheat Board Act second quantity in that year a loss of $21,625,066. In the 1947-48 crop year we supplied the millers 49,342,532 bushels at a price of $1.55. The average price then was $2.88, and in that year there is a loss of $1.33 per bushel to the farmer. This amounted to a net loss of $65,625,567. In the 1948-49 crop year we supplied 39,281,098 bushels at a price of $2 per bushel. The class II price in that year was $2.23, and therefore there was a loss of 23 cents a bushel, making a total net loss in that year of $9,034,652. In the last year of the contract, 1949-50, we supplied 39,788,512 bushels, at a price of $2. As the average price of class II wheat was $2.16 we suffered a loss of 16 cents a bushel, or in that year a total net loss of $6,366,162.
These figures indicate a total bushelage of 182,028,008, with a loss in dollars of $136,920,921. To this must be added the loss on the British contract for the four-year period, making a total net loss of $568,597,765. Out of this the government announcement says that the farmers will be paid $120 million, so that there will remain a net loss to
be accounted for of $448,597,765. And instead of the 8-3 cents per bushel there should be a payment of approximately 40 cents to make up that loss.
If one were to average this loss among the average number of farmers who have taken out delivery permits that loss would amount on an average to $1,930 per wheat farmer. So that I feel there is something here to complain about, so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned.
I have these figures before me in tabulated form. I might point out that they are taken chiefly from information brought down in sessional papers. The average prices for the first three crop years of the agreement were obtained from the 1948-49 Canadian wheat board report. The calculations I have made myself, and I feel they are quite correct. With the permission of hon. members I should like to place the table on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Fair: It is as follows:
Losses Suffered by Farmers Under the British Wheat Agreement
Year	Bush, sold	Price	Price Class II	Loss per bush.	Net loss1946-7 	
169,000,000	$1 56	$2 43	$0 88	$148,720,0001947-8 	
170,600,000	1 55	2 88	1 33	226,898,0001948-9 	2 00	2 23	0 23	33,658,8441949-50 	
140,000,000	2 00	2 16	0 16	22,400,000Total	
$431,676,844
Losses Suffered by Farmers as Result of Subsidizing Canadian Consumers During 1946 to 1949 Crop Years
1946-7	
29,041,927	$1	25	$2	43	$1,	18	$34,269,4741946-	7	
24,573,939	1	55	2	43	0	88	21,625,0661947-	8	
49,342,532	ll	55	2	88	1	33	65,625,5671948-	9	
39,281,098	2	00	2	23	0	23	9,034,6521949-	50	
39,788,512	2	00'	2	16	0	16	6,366,162182,028,008	Total	
$136,920,921Losses on British contract	
431,676,844

Amount to be paid out	 120,000,000
Net loss	 $448,597,765
It would appear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) feels that we should not bear all the loss, as far as cheap wheat to millers is concerned. In Hansard of August 14, 1946, as reported at page 4806, the minister said: Having said that, may I say that farm organizations generally, the farmers in particular, and most of us who represent wheat-growing constituencies in this house have always questioned the advisability of charging the farmer up with the difference between whatever the price was and the price at which wheat was being supplied to the millers. In other words, it should be emphasized over and over again that every banker, every operator, 
every railroad, every clerk in a bank or store, every labourer, every farmer has been buying flour, or his bread to put it in other terms, on the basis of 78-cent wheat ever since control came into effect in this country. In other words, we have been supplying that important food product to the people of this country, to the labouring people and consumers generally, at a lower rate than it is supplied anywhere else in the world. I agree with those who say that that whole cost should not be charged up to the farmer, and in discussions in the past I have maintained that too much of that cost has been charged up to the farmer. I still maintain that we should get away from that just as soon as we possibly can.

I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) still has the interests of agriculture at heart. While we have to have inflicted upon us a Liberal government I would much rather see the minister here as Minister of Agriculture that have him relegated to the other end of the building.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Fair: There is some applause from
what used to be called the rump, but I am not quite finished with the Minister of Agriculture. In order to settle the argument that has been carried on between the Country Guide and the Winnipeg Free Press, perhaps I should read again from the October, 1950, issue. The Minister of Agriculture is not the only one who has been reading Hansard because I believe it has been thumbed through quite a bit during the past few weeks. I am going to read from the revised edition, which must be correct. Speaking on February 28, 1947, as reported on page 898 of Hansard, the minister said:
Now I come down to the last week before the British agreement was signed, when we knew all the facts with regard to it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and I met-I have stated this in the pool board meetings in western Canada and I have their consent to state it anywhere-we met the representatives of all the farmers' grain handling organizations in western Canada-the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Manitoba wheat pool, the Alberta wheat pool, the United Grain Growers. These organizations were all present, together with the president and secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and a representative of the wheat growers of Ontario. The meeting was held for the purpose of discussing what the initial payment ought to be following this agreement. We were in a position at that time to inform them what that British agreement was, because it had all been agreed to. The agreement was signed I think two days later.
That should set at rest any doubt with regard to the discussions that took place on that occasion. It has been said that all these organizations had given consent to the British wheat agreement, but that is not the case. They were called in for an entirely different purpose. While we were giving the consumers of Canada cheap wheat so that they could eat cheap bread and thus have a better standard of living than the farmers who were growing the wheat-I might mention that most people in towns and cities have bathrooms, electric light and all that kind of thing, when only a small percentage of the farmers who grew the wheat have these conveniences-we were forced to pay higher prices for everything we bought. I do not blame labour for getting a reasonable wage, but I feel that we should not be asked to stand this loss.	[DOT]
I feel the Minister of Agriculture has been trying to do a good job. The Western Producer 80709-70
Canadian Wheat Board Act of November 13, 1950, contains the following report with regard to the convention of the Saskatchewan wheat pool:
Expressing the view that there was still a large body of public opinion in Great Britain that felt that Canada was entitled to further payments under the adjustment clause of the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement, Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, federal minister of agriculture, told wheat pool delegates that the matter was still under discussion.
Mr. Gardiner was speaking at the twenty-sixth annual meeting of delegates, policy forming body of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Earlier in the week delegates also heard an address by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who also indicated that the matter was still under advisement, and that officials of the three western pools would meet with the government later in November to discuss the matter of a final settlement of the five year pool with members of the cabinet.
Mr. Gardiner, in reviewing some of the marketing history relating to wheat, pointed out that prior to the date of the contract between the United Kingdom and Canadian governments,-
I might point out for the benefit of the Winnipeg Free Press that the Minister of Agriculture is admitting that the two governments mentioned made the agreement.
-wheat prices in the United States were somewhere in the vicinity of 23 cents per bushel higher than they were in Canada.
Concerning the operation of the agreement, the minister said he believed that after taking all factors into account, there was still "a margin between what Great Britain paid under the agreement, and what Canadian farmers might have received otherwise." Then he added: "All I am going to say is that I don't think the gap has been completely closed and we will go on with the discussions and see if there cannot be some conclusion arrived at which will be satisfactory not only to the farmers of the west, and the government of Canada, but the government of Great Britain as well."	[DOT]
Mr. Gardiner said he did not believe the farmers of the west were being unreasonable, but rather, he believed that they all had a common hope that when the discussions with the British government were completed, a settlement would be reached that would enable Canadian farmers and all Canadians to feel that a reasonable settlement had been reached.
The minister also doubted that the last word had been said by the British government on the question of an adjustment under the agreement. He pointed out that discussions were still continuing as had been indicated earlier in the week by Mr. Howe. He was confident that out of these discussions would come results that would be satisfactory.
That statement may seem strange to some people, particularly those of us who sat here in committee on June 5 last. I should like to read a question and an answer which deals with the matter so much in dispute on this occasion, and I intend to quote from page 3221 of the daily edition of Hansard of June 5, 1950. I might say that, as on many other occasions, I was in my seat and heard this discussion. I shall read both the question and the answer so that I cannot be accused of putting anything on the record that is not really here. I quote:


Mr. Ross (Souris) :: The Minister of Agriculture said they had agreed with officials in Great Britain

Canadian Wheat Board Act to extend the final settlement until July, 1950. That is next month. He distinctly made the statement in this house that would be the date for the final settlement if there is to be any further settlement with Great Britain for the difference between the world price and this price. That was the final arrangement as nearly as the house knows it.


Mr. Howe:: The matter of the "have regard to" clause was discussed in great detail during our sessions with Sir Stafford Cripps and other ministers of the United Kingdom government. The whole situation was reviewed. The United Kingdom is just as positive as I have been in my statements in the house as to what the world price of wheat really was in those periods. My hon. friend said the world price was the price in a local market to which Canadian grain is not permitted access. I wonder what the world price would have been if we had been able to ship our Canadian grain to the Chicago market, which he says is the great criterion for world prices. We went over our agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Where is the period?


Robert Fair: The period is after the word "clause". I am not a school teacher, like the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) or the Minister of Agriculture has been.


James Garfield Gardiner: No comma there either.


Robert Fair: Did you say no politician? I agree with that.


James Garfield Gardiner: A lot of comedy.


Robert Fair: Instead of the Minister of Trade and Commerce going to Britain last year many people felt that it would! have been appropriate' had the Minister of Agriculture gone. Some feel that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not the right one to go. If he does not have more success in his deals in the future than he had in extracting a few more pennies from the British government then I think he had better send the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). These little fellows do not seem to care how big the other fellow is. They think that the bigger he is the harder he falls. I feel that the Minister of Agriculture is interested in his department. He knows his department. He believes in the wheat board, as I do, and I believe that he should have the sale of wheat in his department. I am not going to discuss that point further because my time is running out. Perhaps I should have cut my remarks down quite a bit.
I say that the wheat growers of the prairie provinces are not asking for a handout. They are simply demanding the same price as was obtained by the wheat board for class II wheat. That does not mean wheat sold through the Chicago market or any other

market. We are asking for the same price as was obtained for class II wheat sold by the Canadian wheat board. The prices obtained by the wheat board for such wheat should be sufficient evidence that the board has done an excellent job, and that they have an excellent chairman, deputy chairman and commissioners, So far as I am concerned, I do not want to leave any doubt whatever as to where I stand in connection with this matter.
The advocates of the grain exchange are using the results under the British wheat agreement as an argument for throwing the wheat board out of business. In my opinion that is poor business on their part. Perhaps they are doing that because for a number of years I have advocated that they be thrown out of the grain exchange and made to earn an honest living. I still feel that they are carrying on in a dishonest way, and are trying to further their interests by attempting to pin on the wheat board the bad parts of the British wheat agreement. I feel quite safe in saying that if legislation to continue the wheat board in operation is not passed you will have one of the biggest farmers' strikes in western Canada that the country has ever experienced.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his statement about the settlement of the wheat agreement many supporters of the government have been blaming the socialists in Great Britain. They say that if the darn socialists had paid their debts the government would be able to make a much better payment. I think that is entirely a matter between the Canadian and British governments. So far as this group is concerned, we feel the whole responsibility of making these losses good rests fairly and squarely on the doorstep of the Canadian government. In the interests of Canada as a whole, I believe that the demands for payment should be honoured. Labour cannot get along without agriculture. In the Rural Co-Operator of January 24, 1950, there is a report of an address by Mr. C. H. Millard, director of the United Steelworkers of America, to the annual meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture held in Toronto recently. The report reads in part:
"Falling farm prices", said Mr. Millard, "are giving all of us grave concern. We know that when farm prices fall below an economic level unemployment is going to follow, and we fear the future under such conditions. Frankly, I am a little concerned over the loose thinking of the past few years about the markets for our so-called exportable surpluses . . . The standard of life everywhere must be raised, here in Canada as well as abroad, so that labour is able to buy the goods the farmer produces, and the farmer can buy ours."
It is a two-way business. We must not do anything to destroy the purchasing power of the farmer, and we must also see to it

that labour has work to do. We feel that the farmers must be treated like human beings. References have been made with pride to the great strides the industrial life of Canada has made. I feel, as I have said on many other occasions, that we cannot have a prosperous and united Canada with part of our people well off and enjoying a high standard of living while others are in poverty.
When I spoke on the 6th of February I stated that facts that are not frankly faced have a habit of stabbing us in the back. I state that again today because when the international wheat agreement was introduced in the house we did not favour it with any great enthusiasm. Prices were cut down from what we had been receiving prior to that time so far as class II wheat was concerned. In order to try to get some safeguard, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who is always sound in his thinking and in the speeches he makes, wanted to have the price of wheat tied to the prices of goods in other countries so that if there was a fluctuation in the prices of goods the price of wheat would fluctuate with them.
That suggestion was not even answered, or apparently considered, by the government. We now see the price of wheat going down while the prices of the products the farmer has to buy in order to produce are continually climbing. That is one of the results. First of all the wheat farmers want a reasonable and decent settlement of the British wheat agreement, and with respect to the wheat supplied to millers for Canadian consumption. Then farmers will be ready to go to work again. It has been pointed out that we are in a state of grave peril at the present time. Do not forget that regardless of the efficiency and prosperity of our industries we cannot get along without the farmer. If the farmer is not properly treated, do not forget that he can refuse to co-operate just as the industrialists did in 1939 when they would not work until the five per cent profit limitation was removed.
Do not forget that farmers are not as dumb as a lot of people think they are. In order to make things much better for all Canadians, I again suggest that a policy guaranteeing parity prices to agriculture should be put into effect without further delay. At the present time farmers comprise about 25 per cent of the population of Canada, and according to the best information that we can get from the financial branch of the bureau of statistics farmers are receiving somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent of the national income, one-half of what we are properly entitled to.
80709-70J
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I hope I shall be excused if I do not agree with all his political philosophy. However, I can agree with his last sentence or two when he said that the industrial and agricultural life of Canada are closely associated. I realize that when the one is prosperous it has an interlocking effect on the other. I am sure that every hon. member realizes that there is no time when the interests of industry and agriculture are more interlocking and of more vital concern than during a time such as we are passing through at present. I am satisfied that at no time in the history of Canada have a strong agricultural population and industry been of more vital concern than now when we are facing a possible world conflict. It was our strong agricultural position that assisted so much in the first great war, and indeed it was our strong agricultural industry that assisted so greatly in the second great war. I know we await with considerable concern, if not alarm, what may happen in the next few years as to the part agriculture may be called upon to play.
I am not going to depart from the issue now before the house. I followed the remarks of the hon. member for Battle River and I can agree with him to a large extent when he says that production in many branches of Canadian agriculture has been seriously affected and vitally weakened as we face a possible world conflict. That has come about, I believe, to no small extent through unsound policies practised by this government which since confederation has boasted of being the champion of laissez-faire, free enterprise, business as usual, individual recompense for individual effort, free trade, and all the other things that go with a free man who does not care what happens as long as it does not happen to him.
The minister has been a sturdy champion of a new form of bulk trading; but I cannot understand why he should be such a champion of free enterprise for almost every industry in Canada except the great industry of agriculture, which he represents in this house. At one time I think he was a free trader. Like many others of his party he has changed a great deal since that time. I believe in many respects he has always been more or less a champion of free enterprise; and I have heard him speak loudly and long of the economic freedom that resulted in Canada from these policies of his party. I recall that back in 1941 he brought in a policy under which the farmers of western Canada were paid not to grow wheat at all on certain

Canadian Wheat Board Act acres. That policy was accepted by this government, though I think he had some trouble in selling it to some of his colleagues and more than a little trouble selling it to the house. And I remember that famous summer fallow policy that came into operation in the first few years of the last war. We criticized that policy at that time, though wheat prices were low; and it was not long before many parts of the world were starving for wheat.
I could never conceive how the minister was able to sell his bulk trading policy in 1946 to his colleagues in the cabinet, especially the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I can only assume that that right hon. gentleman was so busy straightening out war assets, destroying old military equipment and trying to get this country back to normal civil production that he was not paying very much attention to these bulk trading policies in which his department would later find itself so involved in its administration.
I well recall that many on this side of the house proclaimed as vigorously as they could that this bulk trading policy was unsound in practice and would be a colossal blunder in the marketing of our wheat. I remember that at that time the Minister of Agriculture pleaded with us in this house to stand behind him in this venture, saying that we would try this experiment and see what happened. Some of us prophesied that it would lose millions of dollars to our farmers. Some of us suggested that it was unsound business practice to sell a man something today for less than its value and expect him five years later to pay you more for your product than he would have to pay in another market. I am a farmer, like the minister. I have done a little business around the farm occasionally. I have traded a few horses now and then. If in 1924 I sold a man something for much less than it was worth he would probably invite me to dinner when I met him at the local hotel, and would tell anyone around to vote for me because I was a good fellow; but he would not come back in 1930 and pay me more than a similar product was worth. Business is not done in that way. The British are smart business people. I always had my doubts as to what would happen. I feel almost like saying "I told you so," because I felt this would be the result.
What is the position after four or five years of this bulk trading? I am not going into the details, because I did not take much time to prepare my remarks. I was so astounded by some of the statements made yesterday by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture, however, that I felt impelled to

say a few words today on this very important issue. We have confused our relationship with the British purchasers of wheat, and we have antagonized other countries who wanted our wheat at the time and had to pay more for it. We have dislocated the whole market for our principal agricultural product by selling part of it for less than it was worth and the rest at world market prices. I sometimes wonder how anyone with sound business judgment could have expected anything else. I am sure no one within the sound of my voice who has had experience in the industrial life of this nation would expect to be able to carry on business in that way and maintain good relationships with his customers. That is not done by selling Jones the product at one price and Smith the same product at half as much again. Business is just not done in that way.
I think the Britishers saw the Minister of Agriculture coming. They probably said to themselves that while he belonged to a free enterprise party in Canada, so-called, nevertheless he had caught the fever from some of his western friends who believe that someone else can run your business better than you can run it yourself. Whatever changed him so he would think bulk trading was the only way we could sell our wheat is still one of the question marks in this whole transaction.
Today the responsibility is with the government, with their large majority in this house. The unfairness of this situation is obvious to everyone. We have the western wheat grower humbly begging the government of Canada to make up to him the loss that must have seemed inevitable to anyone who carefully studied the proposition. On the other side of the picture we have the government suggesting that the taxpayers, the widows, the workingmen and all the rest who contribute to the consolidated revenue fund, must pay through taxation for this colossal error in the marketing of this great Canadian product. I would say that I am trying to tell you what your party has done and what it has not done. When these agreements were negotiated, Mr. Speaker, we were told we were going to receive a lower price than the world price, but that that would be taken care of by the "have regard to" clause and in the end the farmer would receive more money. I am not going to go into that in any detail. I have not got a lot of detail here. I have only a few notes that I scribbled a few minutes before I entered the chamber. I only wish that I had a staff like some of the government members that would furnish me with more material, because I think I could make it a lot more

interesting. I do know that the Winnipeg Free Press, which has not told many untruths about the historic Liberal party for some years, and which is considered to be one of the finest newspapers in this dominion, says there has been a loss of at least $330 million.
I know it is a fine newspaper, and one which I would rather have with me than against me. I have been trying for years to get it with me. That newspaper sets the figure at $330 million.


Mr. Harkness:: For the first two years.


William Earl Rowe: The member for Calgary East
(Mr. Harkness) says that is for the first two years. I notice that other members have set this figure much higher. I studied it quite carefully during the election campaign, and I made it much higher myself. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows I have been long enough in public life that I will not lie to my constituents. I am not going to say whether the loss today is half a billion dollars or $750 million. I do believe that the muddling and meddling in Canadian agricultural products by this government has cost the farmers, before income taxes, at least a billion dollars.
The Minister of Agriculture said some time ago that we were trying an experiment. I must say that, doubtful even as I have been of this type of policy, one could not observe the adroit, smooth political ability of the Minister of Agriculture without at least giving him some credit for having possibilities as a good businessman. At that time we said, "Well, he is smart, perhaps not only in parliament but at least in the country, he has fooled more electors than any other minister of agriculture we ever had." I have often thought that my friends down to the left are pretty good, but I think that when it comes to convincing the farmers, especially a small group of them who believe in it, the Minister of Agriculture can convince an honest farmer against his will with more success than any other politician I have known in the last quarter of a century. The mere fact there is a young farmer in my riding or in the Minister of Agriculture's riding who says he is satisfied to take X dollars for his wheat in the next five years does not guarantee that this is a sound economic policy. I say with all due respect to the Minister of Agriculture, and to you, Mr. Speaker, that this policy has been a colossal failure.
If I had not thought it was a colossal failure before, I would have known it was when, from behind the curtain last evening, I heard the Minister of Agriculture's voice, because I have heard him for so many years,
Canadian Wheat Board Act and I know him so well, that whenever I see that little champion of Liberalism in Canada getting out in the aisle and speaking more loudly and longer than he usually does,
I know he has a difficult case to put over. That has been proven down through the years. For his debating skill I should like to compliment him, and his party. I know he loves parliamentary debate much better than does the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I do not mean to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not forceful in the house, although I think he is more forceful outside the house. I do not think he likes debating quite as well as the Minister of Agriculture. I can understand why the rest of the Liberal party, whenever there is a difficult job to do, will sit quietly and leave it to their little champion, because he is the best in this parliament when the going is tough, and the going was never tougher than it was last night.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the figures representing the loss are a legend in Canada now. The Winnipeg Free Press has used much ink and newsprint in publishing them in the last few years and has tried vigorously to explain the true picture. In doing so I believe they did a grand service, because the figures will get into the hands of young farmers who will look them over. It is all very fine to say, Mr. Speaker-and it is a trick as old as this parliament itself-that the prices for farm products today are higher. They say "Look, the farmer received $500 million more this year than last year; he received more for wheat than the year before. What were agricultural prices in 1932?" I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have farmed quite steadily; in fact my family have been farmers for the past three or four generations. I can well recall when we sold wheat for $1.25 a bushel and barley for 96 cents. But then we bought a binder to cut the grain for $110. It is true we now sell wheat for $1.55 or more as may be fixed by this government with the socialistic turn of mind, but we are now paying as high as $800 for a binder. Threshing machines that could have been bought three or four years ago for $1,100 now cost $2,300. I shall not go down the line because there is not a farmer within the sound of my voice who does not know that the cost of almost every farm implement has practically doubled.
Turning now to farm labour costs, Mr. Speaker, at the time wheat was a dollar a bushel just before the first great war, labour costs were much lower. Compare them with today's labour costs. I am not familiar with what the farmers of western Canada are paying, because I have not discussed it with

Canadian Wheat Board Act them. I have a fair idea of what they would have to pay in view of the industries that are competing with them. I know that in our district the average farmer is paying, and I presume this is general throughout Ontario because there is a fair amount of industry around Waterloo and St. Catharines, $5 per day; that is the going rate. Someone says you cannot get men for that. In some of the more industrialized ridings, that may be true. I have heard men say they did not think they were getting enough when they were receiving board and lodging and a hundred dollars a month while working from seven o'clock in the morning until six at night. Let us be realistic about this. I know there is not another industry in Canada, and I know something about industry, that has been told by the government it must sell its products at less than the world price. When we sit down to negotiate an agreement with labour unions, the leaders point out to us that they are entitled to a reasonable profit and standard of living. I believe the hired men on the farms are entitled to give their children a good education, a good home, and have a decent standard of living. I do not believe that those of us who come from rural ridings-or those who do not for that matter -will serve their proper function in this House of Commons if they subscribe to bureaucratic control of the marketing of this product of agriculture to the extent that they make agriculture and the farmers the poor relatives of this suiper-duper form of new economy.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that there has been no open market for Canadian wheat since 1941.


James Garfield Gardiner: Except the British.


William Earl Rowe: I do not know just what is meant. There seems to be some confusion as to just what is an open market, because of so many catching on to the minister's bulk trading ideas, and all trying to experiment with somebody else's money; the open market question is rather confused with the world market. But the wheat board states that there was' an open market, and reports an open-market price in 1947-48 and in 1948-49. It states the open-market price was $3.45 in 1947-48 and $3.15 in 1948-49.
That sounds like a high price. It sounded to me like a high price when last year I gave a man a cheque for $800 for a combine. In fact, it had rubber tires on it, which I did not think it needed, and I had to give him $830, I think it was. That sounded like a high price.
TMr. Howe.]


Mr. McCusker:: The hon. member is just getting swanky, having a combine with rubber tires.


William Earl Rowe: I would look as swanky on it probably as would the hon. member. But I am not accustomed to putting on style out in the wheat field, if I can help it; and I am not out there any more than I can help these days. I only mention that these things are relative. I am not saying for a moment that the farmers of western Canada or the farmers any place should get $3.40 for their wheat. I am not saying that at all. When we get into a war and when our boys have to do as they had to do in recent years-and as I pray to God they may not have to do again-go overseas and meet the threat, I am satisfied that something will have to be done. Many of them are now going overseas even though we hear that there is not going to be any war. I read some reports from Korea and I think as do some others in this country who think that there are signs of war. I do not believe that any class of Canadian society should take an undue advantage. Probably if there was a world shortage the minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be quite justified-and he would have the support of this house-in trying to keep the price stabilized at some point that was reasonable. On the other hand, we cannot afford to let things get out of relationship by these fantastic ideologies, as a result of which production may be affected.
The Minister of Agriculture said that there is no open market. But, Mr. Speaker, there has always been a free market. There was a free market in Chicago in the United States all during those years; and so far as that is concerned, there was a world price for wheat. During the time that this government was selling wheat at $1.55 a bushel and $2 a bushel in Britain, Britain herself was paying as high as $5 a bushel for wheat from Turkey; she was paying almost that for wheat from Argentina and she got so short of wheat, after our summer fallow policy in Canada, that she bought rye at $4.08 a bushel to take the place of wheat. Who is there to say that there is no open market left in the world, except those who want to control it under bulk trading systems in this country and in other countries as well? That is why I think the time has come, when this experiment has been tried, has been found wanting and to have failed, for the Minister of Agriculture to get back to his first idea of soundness, independent of what the political consequences are. Now in the twilight of his political career I would suggest to him that there is no other man in Canada who can go out to western Canada and tell the truth to the

people there as well as he can, or with such vigour as he still has. In fact, I think he has too much to go to the other place, as the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) suggested; we want to keep him here for a while. In fact he has more vigour than any of the rest on the other side of the house. But I would suggest that he go out and use some of that vigour to tell the people of Canada the truth.
I would suggest that he say to them: "I tried to help you. I saw you selling wheat at low prices when there was no war and when we were in a world depression. I made up my mind that I would see to it that I would try to stabilize the price. I made statements out here in. political campaigns that I would do everything in my power to see that you never sold wheat for less than $1 a bushel again." With those high motives he had I would agree. But I suggest that he go out now and say: "Boys, you stood by me in the past when I was wrong. I ask you to go along with me now when I have repented and am going to be right; because I have made a mistake; I have made a failure. I have lost you half a billion dollars. There is no teacher like experience. You have paid for your experience with interest, cash on the barrelhead. You have had good crops. God gave you good ground. You paid high prices for big combines to harvest your crops fast, so you could go south in the winter if you had enough acres; and if you did not have enough acres, I paid you for summer fallowing, even." That is the position the minister could take and not get off a sound economic basis the great agricultural industry that should be the last to get off the basis of sound economy in this country. Why put it off first?
The Minister of Agriculture has twitted my friends down here to my left; but I have not heard from them anything wilder in proposals than those that have already cost this country a half a billion dollars. I will say it may have been worth it; because if the right hon. gentleman will do that, and if my hon. friends down to my left-who I know can learn fast-will have observed what has happened by this socialistic experiment, then we shall never have a socialistic government in Canada.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture gave some figures. I wish I had his department to help me get these figures together. I am not going to misquote my hon. friend; because while he often surprises me by what he says, it would be a surprise to him if I misquoted him. But he said that he got $2 a bushel and that had he not got $2 a bushel he would have had to take $1.80 a bushel; because we have gone, as you will notice, into the world sphere
Canadian Wheat Board Act now. We have an international wheat agreement now for $1.80 for the year 1949-50. The minister said that the price was $2 per bushel,-to be exact I think he said it was $2.06, because you have 6 cents for carrying charges.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said $2.05.


William Earl Rowe: The minister is only one cent out, then. That is not so bad. The Minister of Agriculture did say that had he not taken the $2.05, he would have had to take $1.80.
I know the Minister of Agriculture is smart and I know he is honest. I know that it is going to bother him, as it is going to bother me, to know why he failed to point out the fact that, so far as Canada was concerned, instead of there being 25 cents difference there was only 7 cents difference. In this particular case I would rather say he was honest than that he was smart in his trading, because it is clear that in his trading with Great Britain he has made a colossal blunder. It might be said, in the language of the street, that in this deal we have had it put over us very badly. I am inclined to think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) went over to Great Britain and listened to the government over there tell him that they were paying $2. Then, while he was over there trying to harvest his losses, he mentioned that they gave him $28 million more than he would have got out of the international wheat agreement, when as a matter of fact the international wheat agreement, a copy of which I have here, says:
The basic minimum and maximum prices lor the duration of the agreement shall be-
And then for the year 1949-50 it gives a maximum of $1.80. And then it says that these shall be in:
-Canadian currency per bushel at the parity for the Canadian dollar, determined for the purposes of the international monetary fund as at March 1, 1949 for No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat in bulk in store Fort William/Port Arthur.
On July 6, 1946, when this agreement was drawn up, the exchange situation was such that our dollar stood at one hundred cents. On September 20, 1949, it was down by 10 per cent; and it was not until September 30, 1950, that this 10 per cent was withdrawn.
Therefore the Minister of Agriculture, despite the fact that we had understood before from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the agreements had been settled, and while it was understood that they should have been settled on July 31 for each year preceding, made this reckless pilgrimage back to Great Britain to settle those agreements. He went back and evidently made a $20 million blunder in the consideration. He tells us now that we get $28 million

Canadian Wheat Board Act more. However, if my mathematics is correct, 10 per cent of $1.80 brings the figure up to $1.98, or almost $2 in Canadian funds.
The United Kingdom-Canadian agreement is in Canadian funds at a rate of $2, while the international wheat agreement is in United States funds. Therefore when the exchange rate was at 10 per cent it makes a difference, not of 28 cents on the $2 price, or 20 cents, but a difference of only 2 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not use the figure 28 cents.


William Earl Rowe: I am using it, from the figures you used. I do not want to read again what the minister said, because I know he will not want to hear it again; it is bad enough to have to listen to it once. However, what he said was not the fact-and perhaps I should not say that, because it might not be parliamentary. His statement may have been half true, and I am not saying that the minister knew the other half. But in view of the weakness of the whole deal I think one may deduce what has happened. I know that that was the general understanding.
On the other hand the Minister of Agriculture has told us about the way the agreement worked in the past. It is a big agreement, Mr. Speaker, one which deals with millions of dollars. I know that in the House of Commons it has become customary to throw a million here and a million there, and we lose some of our sense of respect for money. But, after all, I am amazed to see that one of my farmer friends would ever become as careless as the Minister of Agriculture has shown he has become.
There was involved an agreement for five years to sell our major agricultural product, an agreement involving millions upon millions of dollars. True, only 600 million of a total of 2 billion bushels was involved in the agreement; but the other wheat was sold everywhere. There was no open market, no world market. It was sold domestically sometimes below the agreement price, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), Other places it was sold for perhaps a dollar above that price. It was sold wherever the need was found. There was no organized salesmanship as there had been in earlier years. It was just a case of the minister saying, "I have wheat; come on, boys, you can have it for what you like.
I am getting so much today, and I want more; but if you are good fellows you can have it for less. We will pay a bonus on flour and tell the housewife that we have lowered the cost of living by taking it off the farmer."
I do not believe the farmers of this country should be asked to bear the loss involved in this colossal error-and I say it is a colossal 
error. I say again that it has upset the trade, and that the agreement has not been lived up to. And those who can be charged for its not being lived up to are not the British people.


An hon. Member:: Sure they are.


William Earl Rowe: An hon. member says, "Sure they are." Well, he who runs may read, and I suggest that the hon. member read the agreement. It says:
The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government not later than the 31st December, 1947, and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December, 1948. In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop year and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
That is why I presume that at one time the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the statement which is recorded in Hansard. Although it was revised then, it seemed to be unrevised again last night. The result is that this was supposed to have been settled. If it was not settled by agreement, then it should have been settled, and there was no authority for its not being settled-except for the fact that, as the Minister of Agriculture says, at some place in London he had a conversation. He did not say whether he was out for dinner, and I know he is too seriously-minded to' be in a cocktail lounge, or any place like that. He said that he varied the agreement verbally, and arranged for its renewal.
Mr. Speaker, that is a strange, a most unusual type of international negotiation. Here we have an agreement dealing with billions of dollars with respect to our chief product. A settlement is supposed to have been made by agreement, and concluded the year before. But Mr. Strachey and Mr. Gardiner sit down in consultation in a hotel room, or in the lobby of a hotel, or on an aeroplane, or somewhere else-even in an office-and renegotiate. "We can do this verbally"-but the agreement says it should have been settled long ago. What hope is there when we see that loose type of business being carried on? What right have we, or what right has anyone, to insinuate that the British did not keep their bargain, especially when the Minister of Agriculture was at least $28 million out in his calculations anyway?
I know there was a good deal more wheat than was sold under this agreement. I shall not labour the issue, more than to say that

I do not believe the Minister of Agriculture had any right verbally to change a contract that was of such vital concern to the economy of this nation. Whether he and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have or have not always been in unison in their thinking is a matter for conjecture. Perhaps in one sense it is none of parliament's business, so long as they stand behind the same type of policy and make the same sort of statements to the House of Commons.
It does not surprise me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the have regard to clause.
The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
I am not going to burden the house further than to say that the Minister of Agriculture sold this bill of goods to parliament in 1946. He tried it out and it has cost the Canadian economy through the wheat producers and farmers generally well up to three-quarters of a billion dollars. He said at the time that he was not even sure of himself. We know that in his earlier years he did not believe in it. Whether he was trying to outbid the socialist trend in his native province of Saskatchewan or not, I urge him in conclusion, after having tried the experiment, to realize the one thing that is known to every financial man, businessman and farmer, that it is unsound in practice and not in keeping with business or international leadership. It has gone a long way toward creating a slight irritation between us and the motherland and has caused considerable suspicion of other countries.
I say to the minister to study carefully ways and means that will give the farmers a fair deal. After all, the farmers co-operative organizations I think have done a good job in this country. We have seen the wheat pool in action and we have seen the co-operative movements in action. They have done a pretty good job. I have never seen any cooperative organization making such an economic blunder as the co-operative organization of government which has to keep one eye on politics and which has shown such little capacity for sound business management.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill, but before I do so I should like to take exception to some of the words of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). When he made his latter remarks, he made it evident that he has not been out west recently,
Canadian Wheat Board Act nor talked with western farmers. I can assure him that despite this controversy, and that is what it is, almost without exception the farmers of the west are behind the wheat board.
I intend to restrict my remarks this afternoon primarily to the $65 million payment which the government has decided to make to the five year pool. The first thing that I want to say about this payment is that no one is satisfied with it. Most eastern members seem to think, I believe unjustly, that it is a sort of raid on the federal treasury- a payment made for purely political purposes. On the other hand, most westerners are dissatisfied with it because they think it is completely inadequate.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It is far less than the amount of money that was promised in the last election. Whatever the faults or merits of that decision may be, I deprecate one impression which has been created throughout Canada in recent weeks. Certain members of this house have charged that the British government is responsible for this "wheat mess" through their failure to fulfil an obligation under the British-Canadian wheat agreement. That charge is so patently dishonest and untrue that I should like to speak for a few minutes about it.
First I should like to refer briefly to the history of the British-Canadian wheat agreement. Hon. members will recall that from 1946 to 1950 western farmers suffered a loss on pretty well every bushel of wheat they sold to the wheat board. This naturally caused a certain amount of discontent. However our farmers were assured by government speakers, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), particularly during the last election, that at the end of the five year pool certain compensatory payments would be made to make up for some of these losses.
There has always been a good deal of vagueness as to just where that payment was going to come from. Up until the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made his now famous speech last June, most Liberal members intimated that this final payment was going to come from the rather ambiguous "have regard to" clause in the British-Canadian wheat agreement. As has been pointed out, this clause provided that any losses sustained by the farmers in the first two years of the agreement would be taken into consideration by the two governments when they were fixing the price for the third
1094

Canadian Wheat Board Act and fourth years. I think clause 2(b) of the agreement is significant. That clause reads in part:
The actual price 'to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom and the government of Canada not later than the 31st December, 1947, and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December 1948.
What actually happened? The price of wheat for the first two years was set at $1.55. After negotiation, as called for in the agreement, the price for the third year was set at $2. After negotiation, as the contract called for, the price in the fourth year was also set at $2. According to the British, the prices for the third and fourth years were agreed upon after having regard to Canadian losses in the first two years. The Minister of Trade and Commerce must have agreed because he said on June 5, 1950, after quoting that clause, and I -refer hon. members to page 3221 of Hansard:
That is the "have regard to" clause in the agreement. I suggest that regard was paid in fixing these prices.
This statement was made nine months ago. Meanwhile the price of wheat on the world market remained considerably higher than the farmer was receiving under -the agreement. Whether it was justified or not, there was increasing discontent throughout the west over this fact. Partly as a result of this discontent the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a trip last May to Great Britain. He took advantage of his presence there to ask the British once again for concessions under the "have regard to" clause. However the British took the position that they had fulfilled all the obligations. But, at the minister's request, they did agree to give Canada preference on wheat purchases in 1951 and 1952. It was clearly understood that this would be the final concession they would make.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce came back he reported to the house in a lucid statement. I am going to place extracts from that speech on Hansard once again because I think the farmers of the west should have every opportunity of reading them. I quote from page 3221 of Hansard of June 5, 1950, where the minister is reported as follows:
The matter of the "have regard to" clause was discussed in great detail during our sessions with Sir Stafford Cripps and other ministers of the United Kingdom government. The whole situation was reviewed. The United Kingdom is just as positive as I have been in my statements in the house as to what the world price of wheat really was in those periods. My hon. friend said the world price was the price in a local market to which Canadian grain is not permitted access. I wonder
fMr. Thatcher.]
what the world price would have been if we had been able to ship our Canadian grain to the Chicago market, which he says is the great criterion for world prices. We went over the agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under the clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
That is very definite. Last night the Minister of Agriculture suggested to this house that this statement was not the official report. Even if he is correct, what difference does it make? If we can believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce on May 29, and- I think we can, then surely we can -believe him on June 5. On June 5 he made the categorical statement that the British had fulfilled the "have regard to" clause. Last evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) engaged in some of the most amazing doubletalk I have seen since coming to parliament. He suggested to the house that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did not really say what Hansard proves he did say. He said that the "period" was in the wrong place. He stated that if it had been punctuated differently then the meaning would have been different. I wonder if since -confederation a minister has ever used such a weak excuse to get out of a firm commitment? I watched the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I think he was a little embarrassed. Certainly the face of the Minister of Trade and Commerce turned red. I wonder whom the Minister of Agriculture was trying to fool.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no red blood left.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Another point interests me. I would like to know how long the Minister of Trade and Commerce has needed the Minister of Agriculture to correct his speeches. So far as the matter of unrevised Hansard or revised Hansard is concerned, the minister did make a specific statement. The fact is that the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada agreed at top level last May that the British government had complied with the have regard to clause. Moreover, I understand that agreement has been verified in writing. When the papers are produced, for which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has placed a request on the order paper, I think this fact will be borne out.
I wish to say that I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a very good bargain when he went to England. It is pretty obvious today that the British got ridiculously cheap wheat. I think they should have given us additional consideration under the agreement. Be that as it may, the fact

remains that last May the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the top minister in trade matters so far as Canada is concerned, did make a final agreement with the British, and is on record in Hansard as having so done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That remark is not true. I stated to the house last evening, and I will state again, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not go to London to discuss the have regard to clause. He had no authority to make a settlement and he made that very clear. After the other discussions were over, at the request of the British the matter was discussed. I stated clearly that I would take their position back to Ottawa, which I did. Any settlement or decision that was made was made in Ottawa.


Mr. Coldwell:: Was a decision made in Ottawa regarding it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I-let the documents speak for that.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I thank the minister for his words but they are not the words he used in the house on June 5 last, as found at page 3221 of Hansard, and that is not the impression which he has created throughout the country. For example, here is what the Toronto Saturday Night had to say in its latest issue of March 13-and I ask the minister to listen to this:
The British obligation has been fulfilled. The Prime Minister knows it; and-which may be more important in this moral twilight-Mr. Howe, the minister responsible for marketing wheat, said so last summer both to the British government and to the Canadian House of Commons.
That is the impression which Toronto Saturday Night gained. Here is another quotation from the Winnipeg Free Press of Monday, March 5, which reads:
In the controversy which will now develop the first and obvious recourse of those who are responsible for what has happened will be to blame the British government. Such argument should be heavily discounted . . . There was no binding commitment and there is no bad faith.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his speech last June one can well imagine the consternation among certain prairie Liberals because in the last election, even though perhaps vaguely, they had made some pretty broad commitments with respect to the final payment on the five year pool.


Mr. Ferrie:: Tell us one who made a
promise.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You made promises all over the province.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Nobody made one promise, not one; nobody did.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Every Liberal member.
80709-7U
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Boucher:: That is not true.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Liberal members from the
prairies hooe$ that perhaps the agitation would die ujim among western farmers-that they would forget those election promises. Unfortunately for them it did not die down; it increased. Farm organizations almost unanimously have maintained that the government should assume responsibility for a payment of from 15 to 25 cents a bushel. Here, for instance, is a typical resolution passed by the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture as contained in the Western Producer of December 14, 1950. It reads:
"That If the government of Canada has decided not to press the United Kingdom government for a cash settlement of clause 2 (b) of the Canada-U.K. wheat agreement, this meeting is of the opinion that the government of Canada must accept full responsibility for the obligation implied in this clause . . ."
They went on to point out that they would like a substantial payment made. According to all press reports, if we can believe them, about a month ago the Minister of Agriculture-and I give him credit for it-tried to sell the rest of the cabinet on the justice of a payment rumoured to be somewhere around 12 or 15 cents. Apparently he did not succeed, and the only thing that the cabinet would agree to was what western farmers think is a face-saving solution, the payment of 8-3 cents. As a result of this failure, the prairie Liberal members were left on the proverbial political hook because of their election promises. With nervous rapidity they looked around for a goat.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) is making the statement that Liberals of western Canada made certain commitments. Let him say right out who the members were and what they said.


Mr. Wylie:: You must be one of them or the shoe would not fit.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I say that every Saskatchewan Liberal member intimated or directly suggested that there would be a substantial final payment on the pool.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Speaker, I am one who did not.


Mr. Helme:: If my hon. friend wants to be fair-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: He could not be fair.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I suggest that my hon. friend should not become excited.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I am no more excited than you are.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Here is a brief from the [DOT]Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers unions. I am going to quote from it. It reads in part as follows:
May we stress that the western wheat producers are not, in this case, asking for subsidies, nor do we consider further payments under the agreement in that light.
I am answering my hon. friends.
We ask-and feel we have a right to expect-a just settlement in line with the terms of our contract, the recognition of a moral and binding obligation on the part of government to honour promises made publicly to the agricultural industry.
If my hon. friends want to read this they are welcome to do so.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is not the Liberals.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I believe that in the last election every prairie Liberal made the promise that there would be a substantial final payment.


Francis Heselton Helme: I should like to make it clear here and now that I never made such a commitment at any time during the election campaign or afterwards.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is the hon, member for Prince Albert opposed to a decent payment?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I accept the correction but I suggest that the hon. member for Prince Albert was the exception rather than the rule.


An hon. Member:: None of them made any promises.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I suggest they did. Early this year someone got a bright idea. Perhaps it was the Minister of Agriculture; perhaps it was one of his colleagues.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. The hon, member for Moose Jaw has the floor, and I would remind all other hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted except with his consent. .


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said a moment ago that my Liberal friends from the prairies had to find a scapegoat; so they looked around, and somebody got the idea of blaming Britain. They thought, "Why not in some way accuse the British socialist government of failing to live up to its obligations?" Well, the idea looked like manna from heaven. So notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), on June 5 last, told us that Britain had fulfilled its contract, and notwithstanding the fact that the matter had been officially closed for almost nine months, certain members of this house started what

I would suggest was an unwarranted and insidious campaign against the British government. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) started it in a very mild way. I think perhaps he had qualms of conscience before he commenced, but he did throw out some insinuations. This is what he had to say at page 150 of Hansard:
I am going to say how pleased X am that the British government has considered fulfilling the "have regard to" clause in the five year wheat pool contract ... I am not going to mention any alternatives because I am confident the British government is sound and fair enough to see that justice is done.
I ask the hon. member for Kindersley how he can reconcile those words with the statement last June 5 of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Who told the hon. member for Kindersley the British government was ready to renegotiate this contract? It must have been the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer).
Then on February 8 that bluff party stalwart, the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott), took up the cudgels and had this to say:
I repeat that the government of Canada must impress on the government of Britain that the "have regard to" clause must be carried out.
I wonder where the hon. member for Springfield was last June 5. He could not have been in the house June 5, and yet been so far off the beam the other evening. Perhaps he was home in Manitoba.
The next speaker was the genial hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). I think he was a little ashamed of himself when he made this statement, but he got it out:
I urge the government to crack the whip and get going on this negotiation or discussion with the United Kingdom and let us have a decision on what is going to happen in respect to the five year pool payments.
Did not the hon. member know that a decision had been reached by his own Minister of Trade and Commerce nine months previously, or did he not want to know?
Finally the hon. member for Maple Creek took his turn. In my opinion he is a fine gentleman, but on that occasion he made what I think was one of the most shameful speeches, and what I believe was the most anti-British speech I have ever heard in the House of Commons. Realizing full well that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had publicly acknowledged that Britain had fulfilled her obligations, nevertheless he went on to charge the British with violating a contract. Here are his words:
I believe more emphasis should be placed on the honouring of a contract between two countries.

Who has not honoured this contract? The British have. It is the Liberal members who are crying for revision of obligations long since completed. The hon. member went on:
I think the contract should be fulfilled by the people who signed it.
Does the hon. member suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had no authority or power to make an agreement?
Finally the hon. member for Maple Creek addressed C.C.F. members and had this to say:
They should ask them what they are going to do about meeting the obligation they are in honour bound to meet. If they do not pay it, then I would say that there is a conspiracy between the socialists of Canada and the socialists of Great Britain to refrain from paying the farmers of western Canada what is their just due.
There is a conspiracy, all right, but it is not a conspiracy between the socialist government of Britain and the socialists of Canada. There is a conspiracy among prairie Liberal members to avoid carrying out election promises, and to foist the blame on a friendly commonwealth country. So one by one they joined the chorus.
Then at the height of the campaign one week end the Minister of Agriculture sneaked out of Ottawa and made a dramatic trip to Great Britain to try to argue with the stubborn British. According to rumour, most of his cabinet colleagues were not very keen about the trip. After all, most of them took the position that "a deal is a deal"-particularly when it is in writing.


William Albert Boucher: Who told you that?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I got it on very good
authority. The minister flew the ocean to try to strike a bargain which would get prairie Liberals off the political hook in western Canada. Obviously he offered the British just about anything if they would only make a further payment on the old agreement. Of course the British declined to reopen the contract. How, in their financial plight, could they sell such a proposition to their parliament? How could they suggest that nine months after it was closed, a contract should be reopened which would cost them millions of dollars-particularly after the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce had declared the matter settled?
Thus, the Minister of Agriculture failed in his mission, as he knew he must fail. I say this very respectfully because I have great respect for the minister, but I think his trip was more or less eyewash, to provide him with an excuse, when he got back to Saskatchewan, for not paying more than 8-3 cents. The minister then was unsuccessful, but he did succeed in beclouding this whole wheat issue, and in making some Canadian
Canadian Wheat Board Act people, particularly in the west, think that perhaps the paucity of the payment was due to the failure of the British to meet their obligations; and many backbench Liberal members once again joined the chorus. Here is what the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) had to say to the Southam newspapers after the minister came back:
John Decore (Liberal-Vegreville) charged that the British government "has failed to carry out its moral obligations" to western Canada under the "have regard to" clause of the contract . . .
Had the British government assumed its obligation the farmer would have received substantially more and to which he is entitled.
We in Canada spared no efforts to help the British people when our help was urgently needed. The U.K. socialist government let us down. We Canadians never expected this kind of treatment.


Mr. Decore:: Are you defending the socialists now?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I hardly think that question requires an answer. Reports like that have been circulated throughout the length and breadth of this dominion. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he announced the $65 million payment, rather cleverly implied that there had been some default on the part of the British. If some hon. members want to challenge that statement I can show them the quotation from Toronto Saturday Night, which intimated that they received such an impression. I say the time has come to try to put this record straight. An attempt has been made, deliberately I think, to smear

and I use the word advisedly-a sister nation of the commonwealth, by charging her with failure to honour an obligation. That charge, which is false and unwarranted, is causing a great deal of misunderstanding and hard feeling.
Every member of this house knows perfectly well why the government is in this predicament. The Minister of Agriculture and other hon. members made promises before and during the last election regarding the final payment, which the cabinet is not prepared to carry out. Let the minister and his. colleagues have the courage to admit that fact, and let them not in such a cowardly way try to place the blame upon a friendly nation of the commonwealth.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I have been a bit concerned about the decorum of the debate in this house for the last few minutes. I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) has used some expressions which, if not unparliamentary, might be considered very strong.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I withdraw them.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I think the last word used, "cowardly", should be revised by the hon. member.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I remind parliament that Britain has always been our best market for farm products, and she is likely to continue to be our best market in the future. Why jeopardize this market now by accusations of this kind? I think the people of Great Britain are going to resent them. Moreover I feel that the people of western Canada or eastern Canada will dislike such political tactics.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the minister announced a payment of 8-3 cents a bushel. I believe most western members, and my Liberal friends may speak for themselves, do not consider 8-3 cents to be enough. There are a number of reasons why this payment should be substantially greater. The farmers in Canada are well aware of their political power, and any government which deliberately antagonizes all the wheat constituencies of this country is going to find itself in difficulty. I suggest that this is precisely what this government may do, unless, honouring its promises, it increases the size of that 8-3 cent payment.


Mr. Cruickshank:: We do not buy votes.


Percy Ellis Wright: What about the twenty-cent interim payment?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have only one other suggestion to make. We have laws against fraudulent misrepresentation; we have laws against breach of trust and false pretences. All these laws operate against individuals. I say this parliament should bring in a law to prosecute politicians who make promises realizing full well that they can never be carried out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You would be in a bad way then.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the bill which we are theoretically discussing at the moment provides for three amendments to the wheat board act. I am in favour of those amendments, and from what I have been able to hear I believe they meet with the general approval of the house. When we reach the committee stage, however, there are a few questions I should like to ask in connection with the price which is going to be established for the settlement of any particular pool.
This debate has not been on these three amendments, but has been confined almost entirely to the five year wheat pool or the four year wheat agreement, as it has been called. I should first like to make a few

comments on the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) last night. I was really rather surprised at that speech. To begin with, I would compliment him by saying that he gave us an extremely agile display of mental gymnastics and verbal legerdemain. He started with a little history of the wheat board act, but it was of course his own brand of history and given strictly from his own point of view. In the end it turned out to be what I would call his own brand of political pseudo-history designed to confuse the subject rather than illuminate it.
The minister's speech, Mr. Speaker, -can be divided into two main parts. Everything he said falls into one part or the other, although he did at times become a little confused between the two contentions he was trying to put forward. I was amazed at the manner in which he moved from one part of the speech to the other without giving any indication that either of these two parts contradicted the other. Apparently from the loudness of his voice when he was putting forth these contentions, he was convinced that we would not think they were either. Listening to the minister talk in this way, a couplet came into my mind. I believe it is from Scott's "Lay of the Last Minstrel". It seems to me to be quite apt, and the couplet runs as follows:
That through a bog, from hag to hag,
Could bound like any Billhope stag.
I may say that the word "hag" as used by Scott in this couplet means a firm piece of ground situated in a swamp. The minister was certainly floundering in a swamp of his own making. He certainly gave a great exhibition of jumping from one position to another in that swamp. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think he was on very firm ground in either position in which he landed.
I should like to analyse this speech to some extent. In the first part of his speech the minister tried to prove that Britain had not lived up to the four year contract, and that any losses that the farmers had suffered were entirely Britain's fault. That was the whole thesis, and the attempt was to place the blame in Britain. The roar from the Liberal benches which greeted a contention of that kind by the member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) evidently indicates that most of the Liberal members who were in the house take that position, and are going to do their best to push it. When we come to the second part of the minister's speech, we find it was an argument that Britain had lived up to the have regard to clause, which is exactly the opposite of the argument that he was making in the first part of his speech. He said she had lived up to the have regard to clause to the extent of $35 million and that the $65

million, which as the minister said was now being paid into the wheat pool on Britain's account and which was a doubtful statement with which I shall deal later, would make up $100 million. He said that gave the wheat producers a satisfactory price for their wheat, and one which they were not entitled to complain about. Here is what he had to say about the satisfactory price as recorded at page 1068 of Hansard:
The payments made to the farmers when completed will amount to an average of $1.82 a bushel from the five year pool. Now I would ask members of this house this question: How much more equitable can a price be made?
How much better could it be? In other words, he is doing his best to prove that the farmer got all he was entitled to receive, which was just the opposite of what he sought to prove in the first part of his speech. A little farther down on the same page he said:
The payments made to farmers when completed will amount to $1.82 a bushel. This is two cents above the figure which has been written into the international wheat agreement as satisfactory to farmers.
Referring to the same thing a little later he said:
This contract, this pool, brought the farmers for the last five years two cents a bushel more than that. What criticism could there be made of it? As a matter of fact there is nothing in connection with that to criticize.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the second part of the minister's speech is accurate, and the facts which I have just quoted are accurate, then necessarily the first part of his speech must be wrong. The only purpose then of the first part of his speech is to stir up, I would say quite incorrectly and unnecessarily, bad feeling toward Britain on the part of our western wheat farmers. That is the only purpose it could serve. So far as I can see, that must be the only reason he made it, unless he admits that the second part of his speech is incorrect and the first part is the one he wants to stand by.
This business of stirring up bad feeling towards Britain is exactly what has been done by the speech the minister made last night and by similar statements made by the minister and others of his party. They have stirred up that bad feeling. I think there is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, that they are mischievous statements which were made for purely political reasons and in an attempt to turn the anger of the wheat growers from the minister and the government to the British people and to the British government. On the other hand, if there is any force in the minister's contention and in the contention of his followers to the effect that Britain was entirely responsible for the losses the
Canadian Wheat Board Act farmers suffered, then of course, conversely, the second part of the speech must be wrong and the wheat growers have not had a fair deal. I think there is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker-the minister cannot have it both ways-if one part is right, the other is wrong. It seems to me that he should make it clear to the country which one he wants to stand. Is he going to blame this on Britain and say that the farmers did not get enough, or is he going to continue with the contention that the farmers got enough and that therefore there is no blame on Britain? But surely he cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: What position do
you take?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will make my position
clear as I go along. You will be quite certain, by the time I finish, what my position is. I may say that my position on this question has not varied since the time I first came into this house in 1945; and if you care to take the trouble to go through Hansard, where wheat was under discussion, from the present time right back to 1945, you will find that the position I have taken throughout is the same as I am taking right now and will take throughout the rest of this speech.
Last night there was considerable discussion about the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on June 5, 1950, in this house. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) rose in his place and said that it was not a statement, that it was just made in the house when there were some proceedings of questions and answers going on in the committee stage, and so on. However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that this statement was made in the house under exactly the same circumstances as are a great many other statements made by ministers announcing government policy: in answer to questions and so forth. Of course the contention of the Minister of Agriculture that this was not a statement of policy and so forth or a statement-he even denied it was a statement-naturally gives rise to the question in one's mind: When is a statement not a statement? I think we should have some answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. Surely we are entitled to accept as statements of ministerial policy the statements made by ministers of the crown here. If we are not entitled to accept them as such, then there is not much use in their making them except possibly for political reasons from time to time.
At the same time the Minister of Agriculture disputed the appearance of a period in the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as read by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I said the period was there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has already been pointed out that this was perhaps one of the most pitiful defences ever put up. But I took the trouble to go back and look up my copy of the daily edition of Hansard, as I happened to have it in my office. I also looked up the bound volume of Hansard. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Melfort, I find that there is not one iota of difference between them. In spite of the fact that the hon. member for Melfort read from both and pointed out that fact this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture is so unreasonable that he still maintains that they are different, in spite of the evidence of the sense of sight, as it would certainly appear to the eyes of every other member who has taken the trouble to read it, if not of the minister. I mention that, Mr. Speaker, only to show how extremely unreasonable the minister is and how he will say that black is white and stick to it, no matter what. Here is a case in which there is absolutely no doubt whatever, and the minister still stands up and says, "That is not so; they are different." That was his last word on it. The thing is ridiculous; and it leads us into the situation in this house that it is extremely difficult for us to accept any statement the minister makes.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that what my hon. friend is stating is not what I said. I said that I had not seen the bound edition of Hansard and I asked the hon. member to read it. He read it the second time without the "and" in it and the "and" is in it in the daily edition. I was told a comma was there instead of "and". I do not know whether it is there. But if it is, it is different.


An hon. Member:: Get a copy of Hansard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The fact still remains that the last word he said on it, when this dispute was going on this afternoon, was that they were different.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you say they are the same, they are both wrong.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If he is now admitting that they are both correct, that is the first time I have ever heard him admit anything in this house; the very first time.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a matter of privilege, I have just got through saying that they are

both wrong. I do not want my hon. frier-1 to make me say they are both correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it is rather bootless and fruitless for us to be arguing in the house as to whether there is a period or whether there is not, or whether there is a comma or whether there is not; and no matter which one is there, whether it should be there or whether it should not. As a matter of fact, as far as the sense of the statement made is concerned, the minister is at perfect liberty to take out the period and put in a comma, or to take out the comma and put in a period; or to take out "and" or to leave it in; the sense is still the same.


An hon. Member:: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite definite. I have it here. The important part-of the statement actually is an admission on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this wheat deal was closed and finished with so far as he and the government were concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the decision of the United Kingdom.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Here is the statement right here. I will read it again:
The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned.
There is a period there, as it appears here. The statement continues:
We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
What more do you want?


James Arthur Ross: What date was that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: June 5, 1950, of the daily edition of Hansard. The bound volume is exactly the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Any talk about periods, commas and so on and so forth is such nonsense, Mr. Speaker, that I am really confounded that the minister would get to his feet and make use of an argument of that kind and try to confuse the issue with it. It cannot do anything else but confuse the issue. It does not prove anything. The statement is there, and no matter how you punctuate it, it is an admission on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the deal was closed so far as they were concerned and nothing more was expected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to make an extraordinary request this evening. When we last adjourned the debate on Bill 115 there seemed to be no singular objection to that bill, and tonight I am going to ask for the unanimous consent of the house that we proceed further with the discussion of it. To any accusation that we are in a hurry, it would seem to me that the best defence we could make is that we are in a hurry.
I think there is involved in the incorporation of this company the probability that we shall be creating something equally as important to the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta as is the great Labrador ore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member can proceed to debate the bill. If he wishes to make a motion, he may do so, and make a brief statement in connection therewith.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, with all deference, I am trying to explain the urgency of the matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is it a point of order?


Arthur Laing: With all deference to every hon. member in the house, I would be prepared to stand aside if any hon. member were to object. I felt however that in the last debate there was unanimity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member would like to make a motion. If so, I would ask that he now make it; but I cannot allow a debate at this point. Has the hon. member a motion to make?


Arthur Laing: I am asking that we obtain-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Move it.


Arthur Laing: I move that we proceed with the discussion of Bill 115.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) moves, seconded by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Rooney), that, notwithstanding the standing orders respecting procedure, the house should at this time consider Bill No. 115. It will be understood that for this motion to carry there would have to be unanimous consent.
Private Bills
Is it the unanimous opinion of the house that we proceed with the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is not the unanimous wish of the house that we should proceed with Bill 115, we cannot do so. I understand there is not unanimous consent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Am I allowed to speak on it as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Not unless there is unanimous consent.


Arthur Laing: You can speak.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is not unanimous consent, and we shall have to proceed with the business in the regular way.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of bills on the order paper to be considered by the house in committee of the whole. These bills are Nos. 22, 8, 81 to 102-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We cannot hear what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: From 81 to 102 inclusive, all of which are divorce bills. Then in addition there is Bill No. 75.
Is it the pleasure of the house that a motion should be accepted at this time to include all these bills, and that the motion be that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into the committee of the whole to consider all these bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bills Nos. 81 to 102 inclusive, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Jean Zelda Schacter Shmukler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Beatrice Sullivan Lees.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Kathleen Louise Jones Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Myrtle Dorcas Perry Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Nell Gohenberg Lipson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Roslyn Beverly Gold Browman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Rolande Dumas Fritsch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Edith Frances Storrier Ritchie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Dorothy Isabel Pitcher Flipping.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 90, ior the relief of Sylvia Miller Ginsberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Fernand Senecal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Vincent Tutino. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Paulette Joly Foley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Jean Eurwen Jones Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Edna Donnelly Boyle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Norma Phoebe Mary Buchanan Baker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Grace Gloria Ramsey Racine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Emily Ivy Rose Cook.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Homer Leavitt Ayer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Elma Lillian Le Drew Wells.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Bertha Ellen Bradley Grant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Brenda Mary Powell-Tuck Buhr.-Mr. Winkler.
The Chairman:: Shall the bills carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 22, to amend the United Church of Canada Act- Mr. Mclvor-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Loan and investment.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 8, to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada-Mr. Hetland-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
. TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES LIMITED
The house in committee on Bill No. 75, to incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited-Mr. Decore-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Special powers.
Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, there was an amendment made to section 6 when the bill

was in committee. Is that included in the section as you are now placing it before the committee?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Yes, it is section 6 as amended. Shall section 6 as amended carry?


Howard Charles Green: Would you read the amendment, please?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It reads:
Provided that the main pipe line or lines either for the transmission and transportation of gas or oil shall be located entirely within Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word in that connection which, I believe, is of vital importance, owing to what would appear to be some rather sudden expressions of attitude that have been made. I should like to commend the committee, through you, on this excellent amendment. I am sure it will be found entirely in accordance with the request and desire of those of us who spoke last year in favour of an allCanadian route. We commend the committee and the company for the action that has been taken in agreeing to this amendment without any equivocation. I was not a member of the committee, but I certainly commend them for the attitude they have taken.
This is what we recommended last year. We asked that the interests of Canada should have priority over the interests of any other country. Some of us from British Columbia were accused, we think unfairly, of having carried on a filibuster against other bills last year. We are rather proud of that because I know how pleased the people in the Fraser valley are about this and I have good reason to know how pleased the people of British Columbia are. This result is mainly due to the efforts put forth last year by a few members from that province. We asked that at least the main oil or gas line should be within Canada.
This particular bill deals with a gas line. It is expected that other pipe line bills will be coming before the committee. Those of us who have been successful in promoting the development of our province are not going to be stampeded by anyone into not giving mature consideration to the best interests of our province. Incidentally, any gas or oil line that enters British Columbia must pass through my riding, so I do not care two hoots which company it is that is building the line.
We want these bills to go before the committee in the regular manner when the sponsor of the bill can give whatever information is asked for. The members for British Columbia already have an amendment prepared providing that the main line must go through Canada. If that is known it will take

less time for the sponsor to explain his bill and how the building of the line is going to be financed. The sponsor of a bill should be prepared to come before a committee and state that the company is ready to build up Canada first. Any surplus can then be exported to help build up the great country to the south.
There should always be foremost in our minds the realization that it is our duty to protect the interests of our province. Again I want to commend the sponsor of this particular bill and his backers. That may not be the correct word to use, but I mean the people who are promoting this company. I commend them for their good judgment in deciding that first consideration is to be given to the development of Canada.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, the source of most of the gas which will be carried through this line is in the Peace river country. Since this house last met more than a dozen new gas wells have been brought into production, one at Tangent having a capacity of fifty million cubic feet per day. We have been told by engineers that the natural gas reserve in the Peace river country alone amounts to over three trillion cubic feet. The development there will aid in the development of all Canada.
Incidentally I do not think this line will run through the Fraser valley. If it is to go east it will not run through the Rocky mountains, but over the prairies and then through the lovely countryside of Ontario.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, as far as I can see there is little that can be said against the building of this pipe line, especially in view of the arguments raised last year against a pipe line going through the United States. I am all in favour of this bill which provides for an all-Canadian line to pass through Fort William and Port Arthur, and then come on to Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. The sooner we pass this bill and give these people a chance to get going, the better it will be for Canada. I am prejudiced because this line is coming through the lakehead. This bill deserves complete support and I hope that there will be lots of gas in Alberta to satisfy the people of the east.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Cariboo has said that this line will not go through the Fraser valley, but any line going west will go through the Fraser valley. The Fraser valley wants to develop the whole of Canada as well as the Fraser valley. As was pointed out in the committee, the gas that will go over this route will come from the Pincher Creek area, while the gas from
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited Cariboo and northern Alberta will go to its natural market in British Columbia and Vancouver.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this committee I want to say a few words. Members of this group would prefer to have these pipe lines built as public carriers and operated as public utilities, but we have not a majority in the house at the present time so we must accept things as they are. I intend to develop that argument at length on another bill. I think other hon. members of the committee will agree with me when I say we were very pleased with the frank and straightforward way in which the witnesses answered the questions that were asked, and they were many. I think we were particularly pleased with the willingness of the representatives of the company concerned to have written into the bill a clause indicating that the main pipe line would be on Canadian territory. This is the first pipe line bill that has come before this parliament where such a clause has been included and we recognize that in passing this bill we will be establishing a precedent to have the routes of pipe lines written into the bills. I hope that, when future bills come before this house and the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee, other companies will be just as willing to have the routes written into the bill.


George Matheson Murray: A statement which I just mentioned has been questioned by the hon. member over there. The company presented a map to the committee showing the sources from which they were to obtain natural gas, and those were indicated as being partly in northern British Columbia and northern Alberta. All members of the committee can testify to that.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I was not a member of the committee, and there are a few points I should like to have straightened out. As you know, I spoke two years ago on some of the pipe line bills. At that time I was not opposed to them but I was opposed to the exportation of gas from Alberta. I am not sure whether this bill specifies that the pipe fine will follow an all-Canadian route or a United States route. I believe it is all-Canadian. I have every confidence in the gas conservation board of Alberta. From reading press reports it seemed rather odd to me that the hon. member for Vegreville, who is a Liberal, should be sponsoring the bill and at the same time in the Alberta house the Alberta Liberal leader and another Liberal member-I believe there are only two Liberals in that legislature-are very much opposed to the exportation of gas from Alberta.

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited
I am going to read what I read in the paper the other day. I think it is about time they got together and discussed things. This is what the Liberal leader in Alberta had to say in the legislature as reported in the Medicine Hat News, which is a very good paper, by the way.


Mr. Stick:: What circulation?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We have a good circulation. Don't worry about that.


Leonard T. Stick: Funny papers.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Just keep quiet. The article reads in part:
Export of natural gas would adversely affect Alberta's coal industry. Liberal leader J. Harper Prowse charged, with coal miners alone losing from $8 million to $10 million in wages annually and as many as 2,500 miners being laid off work permanently. He urged the Social Credit government to engage an expert to study the financial effect of exporting natural gas, and said there was a danger of Albertans becoming the "hirelings of corporations developed elsewhere." The government should take steps in conjunction with Ottawa to safeguard Alberta's interests in case a war forced export of natural gas. Four companies were seeking gas pipe line permits.
We have a Liberal member of this house sponsoring the bill. We have the Liberal leader in Alberta opposing it. Just what it all means I do not know.


Leonard T. Stick: A free country.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I know it is a free country, and we have more gas in the Medicine Hat area-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That is quite evident.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Medicine Hat was the first area in the west to have natural gas. While I am not opposed to a company getting a bill through this house, it seems rather strange to me that a Liberal member of the house should sponsor a bill of this kind when his Liberal leader in Alberta is opposed to the exportation of any natural gas.


John Decore: Did you want to sponsor it?
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Decore: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is read the third time I should like to say a few words. I want to make it quite clear that I am not objecting to the bill on technological grounds. However, there are two things that I have against it. The first is that the capital

to sponsor the project is 100 per cent American. Second, in order to line up the project there appeared before the standing committee United States engineers who have done the surveying from one end of the country to the other. We had United States technicians and banking experts give evidence before that committee. It struck me during the discussion that there is some lack of interest or confidence on the part of Canadian capital. Practically ever since I came into the house we have been selling our resources for development by United States capital. In my opinion that is not a good thing. I think it shows a lack of initiative on the part of Canadian capital and a lack of interest on the part of the government. I feel, and always have felt, that if we are going to build Canada for Canadians and create a status of nationhood our basic resources should be developed and controlled within this country.
The second thing I am concerned about- and I expressed this fear in the committee -is that the pipe line will pipe natural gas from Alberta as far as Quebec city. I am not unmindful of the fact, and I reminded the committee, that the basic industry in Nova Scotia is coal. Natural gas is a competitor of coal. If the pipe line is going to tap Quebec city and Montreal, if it is going to be successful in entering that area, it is going to replace the market for maritime coal. That may not happen within the next year or two but in the foreseeable future if that pipe line is going to justify its existence in that area then so far as I am concerned it will have to replace the fuel being used there at the present time.
Natural gas is definitely adapted to domestic use. I am safe in saying there are a million and a half tons of maritime coal being used in the Quebec and greater Montreal areas at the present time for domestic purposes. Natural gas can be used in any industry with the exception of the steel industry, and in the areas I have just mentioned there is a large percentage of maritime coal being used for metallurgical and industrial purposes. The standing committee heard the chairman of the dominion coal board, Mr. Uren. He said that no representations had been made to him on the part of the Nova Scotia or New Brunswick coal industries. I can understand that. These bills come in through the back door from the other place. We get them and there is not much time to consider them. They are never publicized prior to coming before the house.
This bill went through the house rather quickly, and I am afraid of what may be the repercussions in the displacement of basic industry as far as Nova Scotia is concerned.

I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should be concerned also, because the federal government has a very heavy investment in the mining industry of my province. During the last few years this government has loaned Dominion Steel and Coal seven and a half million dollars with which to carry on a program of mechanization in the mining industry of Nova Scotia. Well, if these mines are to be modernized I rather question the advisability of passing a bill of this kind, despite the fact that it is going to bring cheaper fuel to Ontario for both domestic and industrial use. That will not be an advance if it destroys the very base of the economy of another province. So I suggest that before this matter is finally decided the government consider what may happen if this fuel is permitted to go into Montreal and down as far as Quebec, taking over an area which is very important to an industry in which the government has a considerable investment.
I have no desire to hold up the bill. As far as I can see it is one of the best pipe line bills to come before the house. I was a member of the committee, and the financial experts, engineers and other witnesses appearing before that committee were extremely competent. They had all the facts at their fingertips and there was no doubt as to their ability and experience in projects of this kind. And of course they did write in the proviso that the main trunk line was to be all-Canadian; and they satisfied every desire of the committee as to their honesty and integrity in that respect. At the same time I did raise this question, because it seemed to me I would be lax in my duty if I did not, seeing the development of competition to the fuels produced in the province from which I come. If this competing fuel is brought into the areas which are important to my province it can undersell United States anthracite by at least $1 a ton, and I think it will do the same at least to bituminous coal. So I want the Minister of Trade and Commerce to think this over. If the investment the government has made in the mining industry of Nova Scotia is to be threatened by developments of this kind, at least something should be planned for that part of the country which will suffer as a result of this technological advance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.



BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY

Mr. E. T. Applewhaile (Skeena) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
British Columbia Telephone Company
He said: In moving second reading of the bill it should not be necessary to take up too much of the time of the house, particularly since we find the principles relating to the second reading of private bills set out in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 740, at page 280:
The house, in reading a private bill for the second time, decides that the matter involved is one which may be looked into by the committee. It is only in case that an exceptional principle is enunciated that the second reading is refused.
Then citation 771 reads:
Mr. J. W. Lowther, chairman of committees of ways and means, of the British house, speaking on the subject on February 25, 1926, said:	"The rule
which the house had generally followed, and, he thought, very wisely, had been to allow the second reading of private bills to go through unless any strikingly new principle happened to be enunciated therein, and in such cases the house must pause before it accepts the principle."
Citation 769 reads in part:
The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the house affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
I might also read citation 770:
The house does not profess to decide upon the second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations of fact upon which a proposed bill is based, and in conceding a second reading to a private bill, the house is regarded as merely giving its sanction to its general principle on the hypothesis that the committee to which it is afterward referred finds those allegations proved. It is usual, therefore, to allow a second reading except where the bill enunciates some principle which the house is not prepared to affirm.
Certainly it will appear that there is nothing either objectionable or new in the principle of this bill. Its main provision is to increase the authorized capital stock of the British Columbia Telephone Company from $25 million to $75 million. There has been such a tremendous increase in the population of the area served by this company, and in fact of the whole province, that a major program of expansion involving heavy capital expenditures is essential if the area is to be served adequately. That program is estimated to require capital expenditures in the neighbourhood of $10 million per annum during the next ten years.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, this is another time when this company comes before the house for permission to increase its capital. The first time was in 1941, when it was increased to $11 million; the second time was in 1947 when it was increased to $25 million. Now it is to be increased to $75 million, three times that amount. This is a company with a big appetite but with good manners. It eats
British Columbia Telephone Company smaller morsels. The intention of the company is to reduce the amount of the shares. I want to draw to the attention of the members of the house, and particularly to the attention of the members of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, who will have to study the bill, the illuminating speech of the great Tommy Church on May 2, 1947.


Mr. Fulion:: The great and late Tommy Church.


Jean-François Pouliot: The illuminating and enlightening speech. The bill passed the committee stage and third reading on that night. It was such a good bill that on that very same night one gentleman from British Columbia left, with a bodyguard or two, in a special car to go to Toronto.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this telephone bill. First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who sponsors it on the capable way in which he has introduced his bill. I was particularly interested in the authority he cited; I did not quite catch the name but I understand it was the Beauchesne of England.


An hon. Member:: Bourinot.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have considerable difficulty in following the Beauchesne of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is extremely difficult for me to follow the Beauchesne of England as well as the Beauchesne of Canada. I am from a farming district and I am sorry to say that we are not up in Philadelphia law, Ottawa law or even the northern law.


Jean-François Pouliot: Or Connecticut law.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Or Connecticut law. I will include that too. I will even go so far as to bring in Temiscouata. In Fraser Valley we go quite a bit on the law of common sense, and we get by rather well on it. It is a fine riding. For that reason I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill. With a couple of other British Columbia members, I had quite a bit to do with the matter in 1941. First of all, Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to say that I believe this is one of the finest and best-managed companies in the province of British Columbia. So far as I know, the actual management in British Columbia is carried on by British Columbians; and naturally it is good management.


An hon. Member:: But the service is not very good.

British Columbia Telephone Company


George Alexander Cruickshank: It has been pointed out to me, in case I should overlook that point, that the service is not very good. I want to point out to you, sir, that the service could be worse. The main town in my riding is Chilliwack. One of my good friends out there had an experience which I should like to recount. As a matter of fact, until he saw the light after the 1940 election, he was not a supporter of mine, but now he is a strong one. I am glad to say that he is one of those gentlemen who saw the light; and directly he did so, he became a supporter of mine. He puts all his cars out to see that I get an excellent majority at election time. This man is a large businessman in the fair city of Chilliwack. He put in a call to a company doing business within one block of the head office of the British Columbia telephone company in the city of Vancouver. He waited twenty minutes to get that call through, and it was an important call. In the province of British Columbia, we have important business aside from pipe lines. After waiting for twenty minutes, he decided to drive in. He drives an excellent car; it is of the same make as the one I drive, a Pontiac. He drove to Vancouver. You may think that I am stretching my imagination, as do some of the other members from British Columbia, but I am not. I could give you his name and I could even give you the name of the firm he called. He drove from Chilliwack to Vancouver and got there three minutes before the long distance call got through; and it is seventy-two miles from Chilliwack to Vancouver. That is the reason why through you, Mr. Speaker, I am impressing upon this house, or am going to endeavour to do so, the necessity that the capital be increased. That possibly surprises my good colleague who is sponsoring this bill. I am entirely in favour of having the capital of this company increased, even if it did, like some others, come in by the back door. But the people of Fraser valley are not in accord with the amount of the increase.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There will be another advantage, if we get a better telephone service.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Nine o'clock.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Up to date the only advantage we have had from the province of Alberta in the line of gas has been domestic gas. Now we are to get it from the good mother earth. Previously it has been delivered to us verbally, and that is the only way we have got it.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You have enough gas.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Nine o'clock.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It being nine o'clock, may I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had just been making a short analysis of the speech delivered last night by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), pointing out particularly that the first half of his speech was flatly contradicted by the last half of it. Just when the house rose I had been saying something about the row, so to speak, which developed here over the statement made in the house on June 5, 1950, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and which had to do with the placing of commas, periods and things of that sort, and whether bound Hansard and the daily edition were the same or not. All of these things amount to nothing. They are trifling and piffling. However, there is one thing which appears evident from all of the discussion on that point, and that is that the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 5, 1950-and which I shall not quote again-made it abundantly clear to the members of this house and to the people of Canada that, as far as he was concerned, the four year agreement with Great Britain was closed and the thing was over. The point which is so clear is that, of course, it is at direct variance with the contention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in the first part of his speech last night, which was more or less to the effect that Canada never had agreed that the deal was closed, that his trip to England a short time ago was quite in order, and so on.
I would make one final comment in that connection, and it is this: If all that the Minister of Agriculture said last night is correct, then why did the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) make the statement he did make on June 5 last? The two things do not jibe; they are definitely and directly opposed to one another.

There was another matter brought into the discussion last night by the Minister of Agriculture, and that was the international wheat agreement price, and a comparison of the price received in the last two years of the British wheat agreement with the price set under the international wheat agreement.
The minister contended that the have regard to clause in the British wheat agreement had been met by the fact that the Canadian farmers had received $35 million more under the British agreement than they would have under the international agreement. Of course he was careful to qualify that immediately, by saying that the change in the exchange rates had brought that down to a net amount to the farmer of $16 million. The farmers are not particularly interested in the exchange rate; the thing that does appeal to them, and that they know something about, and that will add force, is that they have not got that $35 million in their pockets, and they are not going to get it.
In other words, any talk about $35 million secured in that way does not mean anything, from a practical point of view. The farmers have not got it. And further to that point, the price received by the farmers under the British wheat agreement should be related to what might be called the general world price rather than to the international wheat agreement price. Under the world market price the farmers not only do not gain anything, but they lost further on that deal.
There is one other thing I should like to mention briefly. As reported at page 1069 of Hansard, the minister was speaking in connection with a statement made by numerous people in regard to the losses the farmers had suffered from the sale of their wheat. This is what he said:
The argument is a ridiculous attempt to mislead farmers, and it is used only for that purpose.
That is a statement the minister should not have made. It was brought into question by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). However, the minister did make that statement, and I should like to take this opportunity of throwing it right back in his face. That statement of the minister applies to a much greater extent to the statements he made last night in connection with wheat, and the wheat deal, generally, than it does to the statements made by farmers throughout the country as to the losses they have suffered under the deal.
The more one listens to the Minister of Agriculture discussing wheat, the more confused one becomes, unless he sets against the minister's statement a little common-sense knowledge of what the situation has actually been. As a matter of fact, once one
Canadian Wheat Board Act leaves what might be described as the narrow, tortuous and dark alleys of the minister's reasoning, and emerges out on the broad highway of plain common-sense thinking, the facts of the wheat agreement become quite simple, and there is no need for any confusion about them.
At the risk of some repetition, I shall recapitulate briefly. First, the wheat deal was made with Great Britain for the first two years at a price of $1.55 a bushel. No one disputes that; and the have regard to clause was written in, so far as the price to be paid for the last two years was concerned.
The minister himself put on record what was said by the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, in connection with the subsequent agreement which was made for the second two years. The agreement was that the wheat would be paid for at the rate of $2 a bushel. Since that time the British have claimed that this new contract price of $2 a bushel settled the have regard to clause along with, as a matter of fact, their agreement to take more than they were really required to take under the new international wheat agreement.
I have already spoken about the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the house, that to all intents and purposes the four year wheat contract was closed. The British were not going to pay any more on it, and the Canadian government-while he did not say they were satisfied-had accepted it. Those are the basic facts, to begin with. Subsequent to that the Minister of Agriculture has done everything he possibly could to build up in western Canada the idea that the low price received by farmers was due entirely to what has been represented as the niggardly, if not dishonest, attitude of the British government.
The project to build up this idea, the attempt to sell it to the western farmers, has been done for very obvious political reasons. It is done entirely in an attempt to draw away from the Minister of Agriculture and the government the responsibility for entering into an extremely poor deal, and to direct the anger of the farmers to the British government and the British people instead of to themselves. In other words, they are trying to get out from under, by means of that argument.
The aotual fact of the situation is this: the dominion government-the government we have before us-made this wheat deal, and is thus responsible for the loss the farmers have suffered under it. Nobody else is responsible for it. What happened was that they made a colossal error in judgment. They thought the price was going to go up; instead

Canadian Wheat Board Act of that it went down. As a result of that every farmer who grows wheat in the west is dissatisfied with the price he has received.


An hon. Member:: You have things in reverse.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should have said-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let it go.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Instead of going down the price went up, and as a result we have the present situation.
The farmers in the west have complained for many years about the way the operators on the Winnipeg grain exchange have gambled with their wheat. That has been one of their favourite complaints. I shall not go into the justice or otherwise of those complaints. However one thing is certain: the -Minister of Agriculture gambled with their wheat to a degree that no operator in the grain trade ever even dreamed of. It was the biggest gamble ever made in history, so far as wheat is concerned. The Minister of Agriculture made a very bad bet, and the losses about which the farmers are now complaining have resulted.
These losses have ranged, according to the estimates of various people, up to $700 million.


An hon. Member:: What is your estimate?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not going to go into the process of estimating what the losses are, because I do not feel competent to do so. But I think everybody in western Canada agrees they are very extensive. One estimate, which has already been mentioned, was made by the Winnipeg Free Press, which I believe most hon. members supporting the Liberal Party will look upon with kindly eyes-and with good reason.
The Winnipeg Free Press stated flatly and definitely that the losses for the first two years of the agreement only were $330 million. That does not take into consideration what losses there may have been in the last two years. As I said, I do not want to go into the estimating business, but there is no question that extensive losses have been incurred.
I do not think anybody has disputed that. I have yet to hear anybody dispute that considerable losses have been incurred, although the Minister of Agriculture tried last night to get around that point by saying an extremely good price had been received.
For some years the government defended its wheat agreement in this house and throughout the country on the basis that it gave an assured long-term market, not only for wheat but also for other farm products, in Great Britain. Even as late as 1947 the

Minister of Agriculture stood up in the house and talked about the long-term market there would be in Great Britain for Canadian beef, a statement which was completely contrary to the facts and completely ridiculous. As I say, as late as 1947 he stood up here and talked about a long-term market in Great Britain for beef as a result of making this favourable wheat contract, and the same for hogs, cheese and all sorts of other products.
What is the situation? Have we that longterm contract or that long-term market for our farm products? Everybody knows that we have not. It disappeared long ago and people no longer even talk about it. If the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) is going to keep interrupting I would remind him that my stock of quotations from Shakespeare which might apply to him has not been exhausted by any means.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: They should be. If you do not, you can take it the other way. The hon. member had better withdraw that. Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to withdraw it. If the hon. member is looking for trouble he will surely get it if he does not withdraw that statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, who has the floor?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You withdraw that statement or you will have to eat those words.


Douglas Scott Harkness: After this little fuss I think I had better get back to what I was saying.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Shakespeare's uncle.


Douglas Scott Harkness: One of the things Shakespeare said was "Hold thy peace", and I think that is very applicable.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You had better hold yours.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I am making is that no long-term markets were secured as a result of this long-term contract. In other words, the argument that was used so long by the Minister of Agriculture and his supporters has disappeared completely. We did not get any advantage from that point of view.
Another argument that was used with considerable effect was that this was to help Great Britain in her post-war difficulties. I think everybody in this country agreed that we should give some aid to Great Britain during the post-war period. But the question came up almost immediately as to why the wheat growers should be asked to bear the entire cost of this aid to Great Britain in her difficulties. That question has been in the minds of the western wheat growers ever since and apparently it is not going to be answered satisfactorily.

There is no question that the Canadian wheat grower did have to bear the entire cost of this cheap food which was supplied to Great Britain, because the $65 million which the government is now throwing into the pot, as it were, to bring up the final payment to some extent, is not nearly enough to cover the subsidy which the western wheat grower made to the domestic Canadian consumer of wheat products. The loss on that was $120 million odd.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where did my hon. friend get that figure? That figure is easily calculated, so many bushels at so much. Where does my hon. friend get his 120 million bushels?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say 120 million bushels.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did you say?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said about $120 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exaggerated just about six times.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think lots of figures can be produced to show that the figure is correct. I do not think the minister will dispute the statement that the $65 million will not cover the losses which the Canadian wheat grower has had to take because of selling his product on the local Canadian market for less than the world market price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A ridiculous statement. The largest claim the pool ever made was for $48 million, which shows the extent to which my hon. friend's statement is out of kilter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not supported by the mass of figures on this which have been put out.


James Arthur Ross: That is only for two years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was for two years only.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all that they maintained. The price differential ended in February, 1947. My hon. friend does not understand anything about this, but I suppose that is no reason why he should not keep on talking.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How long has the minister been farming?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been in the wheat business longer than the hon. member has been alive.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Building grain elevators and getting paid for them.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should permit the hon. member for Calgary East to continue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know enough about it to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture
Canadian Wheat Board Act are in a position right now where the grain growers of western Canada are extremely dissatisfied with them and with the way in which they have been handling wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: You would like to keep it like that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no doubt that the wheat producers have subsidized the British consumers and the Canadian consumers to the tune of several million dollars. I do not think that that is disputed by anyone. That being the fact I maintain that the government should admit that it is a fact and say that it has been their policy to force the Canadian wheat grower to give this subsidy to the consumers in this country and in Great Britain, and then take the responsibility for having followed that policy. If they are not willing to admit that that was their responsibility then the only other reasonable alternative is to pay the wheat growers a reasonable amount on the losses which they have sustained as a result of the policy followed by the government.
It is a remarkable fact that the Liberal party, which at the moment is at the apex of its power, as far as the number of representatives in this house is concerned, seems to be afraid to adopt a direct line that anyone can understand as far as a wheat policy is concerned, and then announce it to the people. They keep fiddling around trying to evade the issue,'trying to say two things at once as the minister did last night. Even with this terrific preponderance of representatives in the House of Commons they have not the intestinal fortitude to take a straight line course in regard to this wheat policy.
The wheat producers of western Canada have expected a final payment of at least twenty-five cents per bushel and they have been quite vocal in stating that. Just the other day the legislature of the province of Alberta was unanimous, including the Liberal members-


James Arthur Ross: And the Liberal leader.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And the Liberal leader in the province of Alberta. The resolution passed forty-six to nothing. It urged that the government should-it did not mention a specific figure but there is no doubt what figure they had in mind-make up these losses which have been suffered. I shall not take time to read the dispatch. I am quite sure you will find that the same thing will happen in the other two prairie provinces. The wheat pools have already gone on record in connection with the matter. A payment of 25 cents a bushel would not make up the loss that the farmers have suffered but it would settle the whole sorry mess on some basis of equity and

Canadian Wheat Board Act satisfaction to the people principally concerned. It is certainly an action which this government should take.
This payment of $65 million which has now been announced is a mere sop. It is not going to satisfy anybody. That figure was of course picked on for a particular purpose, in a palpable effort to try to get the farmers' anger and dissatisfaction directed against Great Britain instead of where it rightly belongs, on the shoulders of the government. As a matter of fact a number of people in this country have the impression right now that the $65 million is coming from Great Britain. Everyone in this house knows, and I hope everybody in the country will know eventually, that it comes right out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers, and before it can be paid it has got to be voted by the members of this house. Great Britain has absolutely nothing to do with it, and any attempt to confuse the $65 million with the British or anything that they have paid or have not paid is just an effort to dodge responsibility on the part of the government.


William Earl Rowe: Hear, hear, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).


Douglas Charles Abbott: Here he is right here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was asked what my general position was on this matter, and I think I have made it fairly clear. I should like to make one other thing clear: what my position has been from the time I came into this house in 1945 in connection with the marketing of wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon.
member that his time has expired.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Too bad.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Next.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Continued in our next.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like another minute or two.


Mr. Speaker:: Only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
consent.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 2, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announced that the final payment on the British wheat agreement would be 8-3 cents a bushel. Since that time a great deal of bitterness has been generated in western Canada, and I think only naturally, because the farmers of western Canada feel that there has been a very definite breach of contract in so far as the have regard to clause is concerned, either a

breach of contract or a breach of faith, whichever you like to call it. Various farm organizations and wheat pools have asked that a payment of 25 cents a bushel should be made. I think that request is a very moderate one and fully justified in the face of all the circumstances because the total loss to the farmers was, as a matter of fact, considerably in excess of 25 cents a bushel over the last five years.
Many persons today are endeavouring to discredit the wheat board as the 100 per cent marketing agent for wheat on the ground that the board is responsible for these losses. I would say that the vast majority of the farmers are solidly behind the wheat board as the marketing agency because they realize that it is not responsible for these losses but that the responsibility rests fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the Canadian government.
I say that for two main reasons. First, it was the Canadian government that signed the British wheat agreement. Moreover-and this is an important point-it was the Canadian government that agreed to ignore the contract under the have regard to clause. Second, the government compelled the wheat board to sell wheat to the Canadian millers at considerably less than the price of class II wheat. In that way they of course have subsidized Canadian consumers. I would say it was largely as a result of these policies that the western agricultural conference at Saskatoon, January 20 to 22, 1949, passed the following resolution which I will quote in part:
. . . that the Canadian wheat board should be an agency operating in the interests of grain producers, with a duty at all times to sell grain for the best available price whether in export or domestic markets, and should not be used as an instrument of government policy to limit domestic prices.
In other words, they feel the wheat board should be allowed to sell wheat for the highest price they can get, and if it becomes the policy of the government to subsidize the Canadian consumer then the government should pay that cost and not pass it on to the Canadian farmer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has the resolution my hon.
friend read anything to do with wheat?


Victor Quelch: At the time they were discussing coarse grains.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not say so?


Victor Quelch: But they had in mind the losses suffered as a result of having to subsidize the price of wheat to the Canadian consumer, and they did not want that type of policy followed in so far as coarse grains were concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend explain how he knew what they had on their minds?


Victor Quelch: Because we have discussed it time and again. I have been to various conventions just the same as the minister, and I know very well what they had in mind. A committee came down here to meet us on the very question, and that was the point they made. They did not want a repetition of what had happened under the wheat policy whereby the government forced the farmers to accept the cost of subsidizing the Canadian consumers. They did not want similar action in the handling of coarse grains. They made it very clear when they met us.
First of all I want to take the question of the losses under the British wheat agreement. On the basis of class II wheat the loss, as shown by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), totalled $431 million in round figures. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has argued that we supported the agreement because we thought that prices would fall in the later years. Of course the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was not in charge of the department at the time the agreement was signed. His predecessor took a very different stand. He took the stand that we should not ask our former allies to pay the maximum price for wheat. He took the stand that there was a moral obligation on our part to allow our allies to have wheat at less than the world price. At that time we stated that if there was a moral obligation on Canada to allow our former allies to have wheat at less than the world market price then that was the responsibility of the Canadian people, and the Canadian people should pay the cost and not try to pass it on to the Canadian farmers as the government is apparently trying to do today. A year later when the British wheat agreement was introduced we discussed it in this house on the 27th of February, 1947. That was the first time we had an opportunity to discuss it, and at that time I had this to say.
In the early part of this agreement the farmer is making a considerable sacrifice. He is losing anywhere from 50 cents to 75 cents a bushel.
I was very conservative at that time. I went on:
If in the next two or three years there is a wheat shortage, if crops are poor, the price of wheat will be maintained at probably a high level and will remain there. Then the guarantee becomes absolutely useless. If that should be the situation over the next two or three years the farmers of this country, as a result of this agreement, are going to lose several hundred million dollars. I believe that the wheat agreement with Britain was fully justified, but it does entail in its early stages a considerable sacrifice on the part of our farmers. We feel that the sacrifice should be borne by the people of Canada as a whole.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Exactly what I pointed out at that time has come about; and as we felt then, we still feel that any loss suffered as a result of allowing our allies in Great Britain to have cheap wheat should be borne by the Canadian people as a whole, not only by the Canadian farmer. However, the real safeguard in the British wheat agreement was the have regard clause; or we thought it was, and it should have been and I believe could have been. We have heard statements to that effect made by members of the British house when on this side, and evidently the full portent of the agreement was fully understood. I want to quote statements made by John Strachey and Sir Stafford Cripps in regard to this clause. In a speech to the Canadian club at Winnipeg on February 26, 1947, Right Hon. John Strachey, the British food minister, after quoting the latter part of clause 2(b), which is the have regard clause, stated:
Now these words mean neither more nor less than they say. They mean that the fact that we have bought our wheat from you this year below world prices-and that we may do so again next year-will be one of the factors in negotiating the actual prices to be paid in the third and fourth years. I and my government, and I am quite sure that this applies also to the Canadian government, would resist any attempt to add to or to subtract from this clear and definite statement as written into paragraph two subsection (b) of the wheat agreement.
Then in 1949, in an interview given the Canadian Press in London on February 23, Sir Stafford Cripps said:
As regards wheat we shall continue to depend on Canada for the greater part of our supplies. The four year contract negotiated in 1946 will expire in 1950 and we have recently agreed upon a price of $2 a bushel for the 1949-50 season. We think there is every possibility of the world price falling below the $2 level before the end of the contract either because of the general improvement in the supply position or as a condition of any international wheat agreement which may be concluded in the near future. If this should be the case, the Canadian farmer will enjoy a favoured position by virtue of the fixed price on which we have agreed. This might prove to be a fair compensation for the earlier years when he was selling us wheat at below the world price; it depends, of course, upon how far prices actually fall. But in any case we have agreed to discuss this matter further with the Canadian government some time toward the middle of 1950.
What happened when the representatives of the two countries met to deal with this question referred to by Sir Stafford Cripps? I apologize to the house for repeating what has been read so many times, but in view of the fact that I want to tie another statement to it I feel obliged to quote once more what was said in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on June 5, 1950, in regard to the agreement reached last year. I want to be very careful about my

Canadian Wheat Board Act punctuation and I am quoting from page 3221 of Hansard for last year:
We went over the agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the have regard to clause. The United Kingdom took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
The strange point is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and especially the Minister of Agriculture do not appear to think that was a fair statement. I have always regarded the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a very responsible individual and I do not think that he would get up in this house and make irresponsible statements. Certainly if he made a mistake in unrevised Hansard he could have changed it in revised Hansard; and if he still found that he had made a mistake he could have done as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) did and made a very long correction a few days later. But he did not attempt to do so. Therefore I think we are justified in saying that statement represents what the minister really meant at the time.
I say that for another reason. I think that is actually what happened. I have a press report I am going to read, but before dping so I want to mention the fact that the Minister of Agriculture said he had discussed that statement with some of the British officials and pointed out that it was made during the committee stage, and that they had never referred to it after that. Let me remind him that they are referring to it now. They are making a statement very similar to that made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am quoting now from the Edmonton Journal of Wednesday, February 28. The clipping refers to a question asked the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Gaitskell, by Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre, regarding the amount of the payment to be made to Canada in the final settlement of the wheat agreement. The reply by Mr. Gaitskell was as follows:
The matter was fully discussed in May, 1950, with Mr. Howe, and the result is that no further payment is to be made.
So apparently as far as they are concerned an agreement was definitely reached in May, 1950, and as a result of that meeting no further payment was to be made. Of course that is directly in line with the statement made in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in June.
Many people are asking how such an understanding could have been reached in view of all the circumstances. What was Britain's argument as to why no further payments
fMr. Ouelch.]
should be made? This was the situation. In the third year of the agreement the price of class 2 wheat was $2.23, as recorded in the report of the wheat board. The price paid by Britain was $2, so in the third year we actually lost 23 cents a bushel. In the fourth year, as a result of the international wheat agreement, we may say, the price was $1.80 in U.S.A. funds. Britain paid us $2, so actually we gained 20 cents per bushel in the fourth year. But we had lost 23 cents per bushel in the third year, so we may say that in the third and fourth years the losses and gains balanced, though actually the losses were greater. That is all right as far as the third and fourth years are concerned; but what about the have regard clause under which in settling the final price consideration would be given to the losses suffered in the first two years? In those two years the losses amounted to $375,618,000 according to figures in the wheat board report; a full statement has been put on Hansard by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). That is based upon class 2 wheat. What was Britain's argument at that time in refusing to make any payment in regard to that $375 million? That is a question I think should be explained in this house at some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may ask a question, does my hon. friend say that in the wheat board report the figure of $375 million appears, or does he mean that the hon. member has figured it out from the figures that are there?


Victor Quelch: Yes; in the annual report of the wheat board they give the amount of class 2 wheat and the price at which it was sold, and based upon those figures this is the loss. I quite agree that the wheat board report does not call this the amount of the loss. It just shows the price of class 2 wheat and the amount of wheat sold at that price. In addition there are the losses incurred in subsidizing the Canadian consumer. That information was obtained from sessional papers tabled in return to questions that were asked.
Many of us feel that there must be more to this than appears on the surface. What we would like to know is, did the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-I am not saying this in a critical way necessarily- have some other important deals to be put over at that time? Did he say to the British, "Now, if you will put these deals through I will be willing to accept the final settlement of the British wheat agreement as it is"? That is in the minds of lots of people today.
I am not saying it is correct, but that is what a lot of people believe must have been the situation, otherwise they cannot understand how Britain would refuse to make any further payments under this contract.

I believe it probably would have been better to send the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) over there last year, because after all the Minister of Agriculture was present when this agreement was signed originally, and has been present during all the discussions. He is thoroughly familiar with the whole situation, and further he is thoroughly familiar with the whole operation of agriculture. He realizes the trials that agriculture has suffered in the past. I am not for one minute questioning the ability of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We all know that he has a great deal of ability, but I do not think he was the right man for this job. There is another reason why I think it was a mistake to send the Minister of Trade and Commerce over there, and that is because he has a very peculiar idea of what is the world price. He does not agree that class II wheat was the world price. I should like to know what he would call a world price. The other day he stated that in view of the fact most of the wheat was sold under the British wheat agreement, that should be considered as the world price. But that would make the have regard to clause meaningless.
Then, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made it quite clear that he does not agree with long-term agreements. He is sceptical about any agreement under which you contract in advance to deliver wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my hon. friend does not want to misrepresent my position.


Victor Quelch: Not at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I went to England to work out an arrangement for the sale of the 1950 wheat crop. Those arrangements were made, and made without any discussion of any other subject.


Victor Quelch: Will the minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now, just keep quiet. You asked for this, so let me give it to you. After the arrangements were made for the sale of the 1950 wheat crop, I was asked to discuss the settlement of the four year wheat agreement. I said I had no authority to discuss it, and certainly no authority to settle it. If they wanted to tell me their views I would report them to my government. They told me their views, and I gave the views of the Canadian government as I understood them. I brought back a message to the Canadian government. That is my position, and I wish my hon. friend would not distort it. I have stated it three times already.


Victor Quelch: It is very peculiar that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Canadian Wheat Board Act Gaitskell should be suffering from hallucinations. Here we have a statement by Mr. Gaitskell which says that an agreement was reached. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce says no agreement was reached. Then there is the statement I read a moment ago which is based on the statement made by the chancellor of the exchequer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The chancellor of the exchequer says that the agreement was discussed with Mr. Howe. He does not say "settled".


Victor Quelch: It says "the matter was thoroughly discussed with Mr. Howe, and the result is that no further payment is to be made". The result of that discussion with Mr. Howe, not with the Canadian cabinet, but the result of that discussion with Mr. Howe is that no further payment will be made. You could not have anything much more definite than that. If the minister wants to say that Mr. Gaitskell is having hallucinations-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend willing to take my statement or not, that I did not discuss the settlement? I am saying that I listened to a discussion, that discussion was reduced to a memorandum and I brought it back to my government. Does my hon. friend want to go behind that statement?


Victor Quelch: The minister has asked me a question, so I will ask him one. Are you saying that Mr. Strachey is a liar?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, what did Mr. Strachey say?


Victor Quelch: It is Mr. Gaitskell, I am sorry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Gaitskell has stated the situation correctly. He stated the matter was discussed with me.


Victor Quelch: He did not say that. He said that as a result of the discussions with Mr. Howe no further payment will be made. Do you want me to read it again?
The matter was fully discussed In May, 1950, with Mr. Howe and the result is that no further payment is to be made.
I shall drop the matter at that point. I believe the record pretty well speaks for itself. If people cannot find that statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in June, 1950, they will not be looking through Hansard very thoroughly because I am afraid it has been referred to a number of times.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has never at any time intimated that he wished to change the statement he made in June, 1950.


Victor Quelch: You do not want to change the statement you made in June, 1950? Then it stands?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course it stands.


Victor Quelch: Then I have nothing to take back at all. If you accept that statement, you accept the statement by Mr. Gaitskell; then fine, an agreement was reached in May, 1950, that no other payment should be made. Well, that is fine; now we all agree.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better explain this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't spoil the unanimity.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted to explain it, but if it is preferred I could speak after my friend has finished.


Victor Quelch: I am afraid my time is going to be cut very short.


Mr. Warren:: It cannot be too short.


Victor Quelch: As I say, the sixty-four dollar question today is why did Britain refuse to make further payments in regard to the losses of the first two years? The British have a good name for standing by their agreements. There must be some reason for their refusal to make any payment on the losses in the first two years, losses which amounted to $375 million on the basis of past deliveries.


Ralph Melville Warren: That is your guess.


Victor Quelch: It is not a guess at all, it is based upon figures.


Ralph Melville Warren: Oh, no, it is only a guess.


Victor Quelch: It is absolutely based on figures. If the hon. member will read Hansard tomorrow he will see the table. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) is not so bright tonight; he must have blown a fuse.
There is also the question of losses suffered as a result of the wheat board being compelled to sell the miller in the first instance at less than prices under the British wheat agreement, and then later on at less than the price of class II wheat. Those losses amount to around $130 million, if you ignore the fourth year of the British wheat agreement. I know the minister interrupted the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) to say that according to the wheat pool those losses are only $48 million. This loss of $48 million only refers to the loss suffered as a result of selling wheat to the millers at less than the price in the British wheat agreement, but if you take the price for class II wheat and the losses suffered on wheat delivered at that price, it amounts to $130 million for the first three years.


Ralph Melville Warren: Another guess.


Victor Quelch: Now, what possible decision can there be for asking that the farmers stand

the full amount of these losses, unless it is to be part of a general stabilization plan? I am satisfied that the farmers would be quite willing to forget about any further payment, in so far as subsidizing the Canadian consumer is concerned, if in return prices are to be stabilized at a fair level in the future. After all, the farmers were asked to take a price below the world price during the war as part of the government's general stabilization program in return for which they were guaranteed that there would be stabilization in the future. We do not have that guarantee in any legislation, because it is not so stated in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I am very glad that we have that act, and I think it is a good act. I still think, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture will agree that there needs to be further clarification of that point as to just what the basis of the support prices will be. He knows that the federation of agriculture has asked that it should be based upon parity. The federation of agriculture has agreed to meet with the minister or with the government and help to formulate a basis for a parity year, but to date that has not been done; and until it is done, agricultural price support is an uncertain quantity.


Ralph Melville Warren: What is parity?


Victor Quelch: As I say, not only have we not had a stabilization program put into operation, but we found that when the price of wheat was set in 1950-that is, when the initial payment was made in 1950-at $1.40, the minister refused to set it any higher because he said that it represented the floor price and he did not want to take the chance of having a loss. Surely if this was to be part of a stabilization program, then in view of the tremendous losses that had been suffered by the farmers in the past, they would have been justified in expecting a higher initial payment than $1.40.
But the minister stated that he was not prepared at that time to put it higher because it might mean a loss if the price of wheat fell; and he was not prepared to adopt any policy that might result in a loss to the government. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) thinks that the farmers during the last five years have had a better price for wheat than they have ever had before. But that is only half the story. It is no good talking about the farmers having bad a better price during this past five years than they ever had before unless at the same time you also stress the fact that their costs of production were also higher than they had even been before. The two are definitely tied together, and you cannot separate them. If you go back twenty years, you can readily see why many farmers felt that they should

nave been allowed the highest price they could get during the war; because during the depression years, during those ten years when prices went so low-for instance, in 1932 the price of wheat fell to 19J cents a bushel- the farmers were told time and again that they could not expect to get a higher price than the world price. But what happened when the war came along? Prices rose slightly during the first three years of the war; then in 1942 the government heavily increased taxation. Then the farmers found themselves in the peculiar position of having to pay an income tax on the repayment of losses incurred as a result of having to sell their produce at prices far below the cost of production. Then a few years later prices rose higher. At just about the time that prices got really good-when the farmers thought, now, here is the real chance to recover the losses we suffered during the depression years-the government put a ceiling on farm prices. I think the farmers are justified in saying: All right, you cannot have it both ways. If we have got to accept the world price in the depression years, we are entitled to the world price when prices are high. The government decided not to allow the farmers to have world prices during the war. But in return they guaranteed them that in the future they would have stabilized prices. The farmers expected the government to live up to that promise. But so far there is not much assurance that the government intends to do so. First of all, they tried to get rid of the agricultural price support. They had a resolution on the order paper to end it this parliament. But I am glad to say they reinstated it; but it is still of a nebulous character.
I want to say a few words with regard to the international wheat agreement. Personally I am much in favour of a long-term international wheat agreement and I believe that the farm organizations support it; but they expect that when an international agreement is signed, the payment should be on a sound basis. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be the first to admit that the method of payment under the international wheat agreement is not on a sound basis. I heard him speak in Calgary. He said he did not like selling wheat a year ahead of delivery.
What is the payment under the international wheat agreement? It provides for a ceiling of $1.80 a bushel for four years. Then it provides that the floor will be dropped ten cents in each year; $1.40 the first year, $1.30 the second year, $1.20 the third year and $1.10 the fourth year. Why should the floor under wheat drop if everything else is going up?
Canadian Wheat Board Act Why should the ceiling be held down at any given level if everything else is going up? Why should the price of wheat be frozen in a case of that kind?
We are not just being wise at the present moment on this point. Back in 1948, when the international agreement was then being discussed in this house, we argued that the price under the international wheat agreement should be tied to the price level; that is, in the first year you agree upon the payment or price that is to be paid; then in subsequent years, those payments should be tied to your price level so that if the price level goes up 10 per cent, the price of wheat goes up 10 per cent; or if the price level goes down 10 per cent, then the price of wheat goes down 10 per cent. In that way you would have the price of wheat tied to the general price level. In other words, you could very well have a parity price. I should like to quote what I said in this house on February 27, 1948, when we were discussing wheat policy. As reported as page 1694 of Hansard I said:
The grain trade have used the British wheat agreement as the basis upon which to attack the principle of long term international agreements. They forget that the British wheat agreement was not a straight business deal, but was in part to help our allies, as was indicated at the time the minister brought down his early wheat legislation; therefore all the Canadian people should have stood the cost of the sacrifice and the farmers should not be expected to bear the burden. The grain trade criticized the long term agreements between countries on the grounds that whilst a certain price might be fair today it might be out of line tomorrow due to a rise or fall in the price level. That is true, and that is why we have argued that when prices are agreed upon they should be tied to the price level of the country with which the agreement is made. Then, if the price level rises the price of wheat will rise and vice versa if the price level falls. The result of that would be of course that our wheat would always bring back the same amount of imports. It would help to insulate the Canadian economy against fluctuation in world prices.
We still feel the same way. We feel that any long-term agreements that are signed should be signed on that basis. First of all agree to a price which both parties are satisfied with and then tie that price to the general price level so that it will fluctuate with the price level. Otherwise you are bound to have happen what happened under the British wheat agreement where the government guessed wrong or to have a situation similar to that we are having under the present international wheat agreement where everything else is going up and yet the price of wheat is tied down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are forty-six countries in the wheat agreement. Where would my hon. friend find the index that would govern?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Victor Quelch: I think it you consult the
international monetary fund, you will find that they could give you the price index of any member of that fund. They have that information at all times. There would be no difficulty in obtaining that information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do they have a composite price that would govern each of the forty-six countries?


An hon. Member:: Explain it to him with a period.


Victor Quelch: If you are on a bilateral basis, there would be no difficulty. You would have the price level of the country you are dealing with and you would be trading goods for goods. If their price level went up, then of course they would be paying you more and you would be paying a higher price for their goods in turn but your imports and exports would balance in that regard. If the minister would prefer not to relate it to the price level of the importing nation, it could be tied up to the general price level. But I think it should be tied to the price level of the importing country so that you can balance your trade on a bilateral basis. I know that the minister has a different view from mine on the question of multilateral trade. I believe there is a responsibility on the part of the exporting nation to see to it that the credit it establishes in any country is cleared either by importing goods from that country or by trading that credit to some other country in return for goods.
There has been a good deal of comparison between the agricultural policies of this country and the agricultural policies in the United States. I was quite interested in a statement that appeared in the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of February 23, 1951, which reads as follows:
The United States government policy provides for farm price supports not only for wheat but for a whole range of key farm products. The investment in farm price support was over $4 billion last summer in that country and the limit has been raised to $61 billion. If Canada wants to make a comparative investment in farm price supports on a population basis, the total would be nearly $600 million. The actual Canadian government investment for such a purpose has been less than $10 million.
Now, in conclusion I should like to make one brief reference to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he spoke in the house yesterday. I agree with much that the minister said. In fact, the first part of his speech built up a very strong argument for the carrying out of the have regard to clause. Then, strangely enough, toward the end he reversed his stand completely and took the stand that there


should not be any further payments from Great Britain, because he tried to show that the price of wheat in the world pool was $1.82 and that the price under the British wheat agreement was $1.82, and that they balanced, after the $65 million had been added to the British wheat agreement. So according to the argument of the Minister of Agriculture that $65 million balances the price of wheat in the world pool and in the British wheat agreement pool.
The minister's statement as it is reported at page 1068 of Hansard is:
The British contract, as it has been settled with the payment of $65 million, brings $1.82 into the pool. The sale of wheat to Canadians, and all other people outside the British contract, brought $1.82 a bushel into the pool.
Then the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asked this question:
Does that $1.82 include the ICO million bushels sold on the domestic market?
To that the minister replied:
Oh yes, it does.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me perfectly fantastic that you would include wheat sold for domestic consumption in the world price of wheat. The stand taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is very different; he took the opposite stand. I should like to quote what he said on June 5, 1950, as it is reported at page 3184 of unrevised Hansard. He was discussing the world price for wheat, and said:
It seems to me the price at which the bulk of the wheat is bought and paid for might well be regarded as the world price, and I therefore suggest that it would be much more reasonable to call the price under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement the world price than the price quoted on the Chicago exchange. The latter was merely a domestic price-
He said it would not be fair to call the Chicago market price the world price, because it is just a domestic price. Yet here the Minister of Agriculture includes the price of wheat sold for domestic consumption in Canada, and calls it the world price. Those two ministers had better get together.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Victor Quelch: I realize that the Minister of Agriculture had a real tough proposition when he tried to make that speech last night. He was very unhappy about the whole situation. Nobody believes more than the Minister of Agriculture that further payments should be made under the British wheat agreement. His whole argument was built up to show that further payments should be made under the have regard to clause.

Then at the end he tried to save the government.


Ralph Melville Warren: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Victor Quelch: Sit down, sit down.


Ralph Melville Warren: I would like to ask a question.


Victor Quelch: Sit down; I am not interested. I cannot hear you, anyway. I think the Minister of Agriculture was in the same position as a minister of the church. The story goes that he had notes, and that in the margin there was the notation "when the argument is weak, yell like hell." Well, the minister spoke like hell-and, not only that, his whole argument sounded like hell.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make another speech; but I wish in the first place, after having read Hansard of last night-


An hon. Member:: Unrevised or revised?


James Garfield Gardiner: -and after having tried to review my own Hansard of today, I wish to apologize to the house for having attempted to discuss any part of the_ question while there was so much noise going on that I am sure that those who were trying to take down what was being said were not able to take it down. We should know better, particularly one who has been in the house as long as I have, than to try to discuss a matter as important as the one being discussed, under those conditions. I wish to apologize both to- the house and to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) for having carried on a discussion of that kind at that time, and to clarify what I was attempting to say at the time, and which I find I did not say very well-and I am sure left an entirely wrong impression upon Hansard.
The question that was under discussion and which had been-


Major James William Coldwell: Is this a speech or privilege?


James Garfield Gardiner: It could be a speech, because an amendment has been moved. But it is not going to be.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it privilege?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be the only speech
I will make on this amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: All right.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it will not be long. As a matter of fact I wished to take advantage of my opportunity to speak on the amendment-I had not spoken on it before-in order to place on Hansard what I was attempting to say to the house last night, and again today on two different occasions,
Canadian Wheat Board Act while the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) was speaking, and later while the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) was speaking.
I attempted last night to indicate to the house in reply to a question asked me by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) what discussion had taken place between myself and members of the British government with regard to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was presumed to have said in the house on June 5.
I stated at that time that I had unrevised Hansard with me, and that I had called attention of the British ministers to the nature of the Hansard, and that it was obvious that there was an uncompleted sentence in the report of Hansard.
Now, we who speak in the house from time to time, and who correct our Hansard, know that does occur quite often. Last night when we were in the middle of a discussion I was under the impression-and I find now, when I read Hansard, wrongly under the impression-that the hon. member for Melfort had said that the sentence as it appears in the revised Hansard is different from the one which appears in the unrevised Hansard. I find there is no difference between them whatsoever. And one of the remarks which caused me to think that all the more was the remark made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to the effect that either the minister or his secretary corrects Hansard, and revised Hansard is the one you should quote from. That gave me the further impression that there was a difference in the two. There is no difference.


Major James William Coldwell: I had not either before me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had this one, but not the other one. I find the sentence reads like this-the first sentence-and perhaps I should begin where most others have begun:
We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned.
The sentence stops there. It is obvious that is not the end of it.


Major James William Coldwell: Read the next sentence to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wait until I say what I
said to the British government. I said to the British government that the sentence in my opinion was stated this way-and I said I listened carefully at the time, and I was satisfied that this was what the minister said: The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far

Canadian Wheat Board Act as the United Kingdom was concerned they did not intend to pay more.
That was my impression of what was said-that the United Kingdom government had said they did not intend to pay more. The next sentence is one which is also read, and which was read last night as though it were all one sentence:
We agreed on behalf of Canada-


Percy Ellis Wright: I did not read that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us not get them confused again:
We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
The impression I gathered from that when it was said here and the impression I explained to the British government that I thought was intended, was that under all the circumstances the Canadian government had come to the conclusion-I said so last night- unanimously that since the British government had taken the position that they were not going to pay, there was nothing we could do about it. That was the impression I gave to them and I stated that last night. I am sorry the hon. member for Acadia has got a wrong impression of what I was attempting to say.
I did not say that no one had taken a different position later, but I did say that the British government during the discussions that were carried on for the next three or four days never did attempt again to indicate that they thought that the Canadian government had agreed with them in their decision. The impression that I was attempting to give to them was that we understood the British government had decided they were not going to pay more.


Victor Quelch: Why did Mr. Gaitskell make the statement I am quoting?


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which Mr. Gaitskell made was made on the following Monday after our discussions were completed. Mr. Gaitskell said just exactly what the Minister of Trade and Commerce read to the house a moment ago. If Mr. Gaitskell had intended to say what my hon. friends are trying to put into his mouth after we had discussed the question during the preceding three or four days, if he had intended to say what is being said in this house now that he intended to say, he would have said it. He did not say any such thing.


Percy Ellis Wright: He said what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the newspaper report:
Gaitskell was asked in Commons what additional sum was payable to Canada in view of the contracted price and the world price of wheat during the last two years of the contract.

"None," Gaitskell replied. "The matter was fully discussed in 1950 with Mr. Howe and the result was that no further payment will be made."
That does not say that Mr. Howe agreed with it.


Major James William Coldwell: The words are, "was to be made". I have the British Hansard here.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not a copy of the British Hansard, but it is "will be made" in this report which has appeared all across Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I have the British Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it.


Major James William Coldwell: This reads:
The matter was discussed in May, 1950, with Mr. Howe and the result was that no further payment was to be made.


James Garfield Gardiner: He does not say that Mr. Howe agreed to that. That is what is being said in this house, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce agreed to it. Mr. Gaitskell does not say that at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have left it alone.


James Garfield Gardiner: He simply said that a decision was reached, and nothing more than that.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said today that he brought back a memorandum in May 1950 which related to this matter. Did the government approve of that memorandum?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government approved of just exactly what I am saying and of what 1 said last night. They approved of it unanimously. The memorandum did not say what my hon. friends are saying.


Major James William Coldwell: Did the memorandum consist of a minute of the meeting between the minister and the British government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but the minute did not say what my hon. friends are trying to read into it.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the government produce the relevant part of the minute?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is another thing. You would need to have the consent of two governments for that and I am not prepared to say whether they will give it. I am saying to my hon. friend that there is no ground in it for the interpretations that are being put on anything that took place, either in the discussions over there or in the government here. The fact is that the British government accepted the position that this government did not agree. That has been placed before them very clearly on two or three occasions since.


Major James William Coldwell: Why did not the Minister of Agriculture say that when the Minister of

Trade and Commerce made his statement in the house? We heard no denial of the statement for weeks, indeed for months.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not denying the statement. I am simply pointing out now that Hansard could not possibly be correct. One hon. member came across the floor tonight to show me a report that was made this afternoon and which was not in accordance with what was said in the house. That happens continuously. We are sometimes responsible when we make as much noise as we made last night, although I was not making all the noise on that occasion. I simply state there-


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister permit one more question? I think the minister's quotation of what the minister said on June 5 indicates either an extraordinary memory or the minister must have a note of it. Did the minister make a note of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said?


James Garfield Gardiner: I certainly made a note in my mind because there was not anyone in this house who was more concerned with what was being said than I was. I had carried on the discussions in connection with it and I listened very carefully to what was being said. I was satisfied when the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his statement that he did say just what I have said to this house. The report in Hansard is obviously not a correct report. All I am saying is that hon. members should not insist on quoting as a statement of policy or as a decision of the government a report which is obviously incorrectly stated.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this to the minister-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not speaking of the British Hansard, I am speaking of the Canadian Hansard.


Major James William Coldwell: I think it is of the greatest importance to our relations with the British government and people that the memorandum to which the minister has referred, that is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which I believe is a minute, should be produced here so that the people of Canada may know what the truth of this is when there is such a difference in the statements between that of the Minister of Agriculture and the British government.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is another matter. I do not agree that there is any difference between the minister and the British government; the difference is between members opposite and the members on this side of the house as to what was saidi. It is simply because there is an incorrect report of what was said in Hansard.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you casting doubt on the Hansard reporters?


James Garfield Gardiner: The report is incorrect and obviously incorrect. The hon. member's interpretation of it is not the correct interpretation.


Major James William Coldwell: I have had letters already from western Canada saying that some people will boycott British goods on account of the manner in which the British have treated the western farmers. This matter should be cleared up at once.


James Arthur Ross: Some members have said that they do not blame them.


Major James William Coldwell: Some members of the house say they do not blame them. That being the situation, this government should produce the memorandum of May 1950 and show exactly what the situation is.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only other point I am going to deal with at all is the one that was raised' by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and which was referred to by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness). I think it was stated by both of them, but the statement by the hon. member for Acadia is more easily referred to as it was more recently made. He has stated that I built up a good case in the early part of my speech last night for the contention that the British government owed us something or owed the farmers of western Canada something. That is exactly what I was attempting to do. I was attempting to build up a good case for the position that the four year contract did make it necessary for the British government to pay some attention to the difference which did exist as between the price paid and what might be called the world price, although not on the basis of just any interpretation that you like to put on the world price. Well, having built up that case to show that the western farmers had some reason for believing that they were entitled to some payment, I had stated on different occasions-as a matter of fact I stated it in Great Britain.-that one of the reasons why they had the right to believe that was because I myself had so stated it, a member of the British government had so stated it, and it had been stated by a great many people that they were entitled to something. If they were not then we had misrepresented the case and I did not wish to be considered as one who had misrepresented the case in connection with the matter.
Having said that, and having proven to my own satisfaction, if not to the satisfaction of this house, that the farmers were entitled, to some further payment, I then went on to try to show that, so far as I am concerned personally-and I could be wrong but after all I

Canadian Wheat Board Act was the minister responsible for making the contract and for making representations to the government of Canada and the British government with regard to it-I had taken the position, all through negotiations in 1947 and 1948 for further payments as a result of any losses that might have been taken in the first two years, that we did not agree with the contention that there had been a loss of $330 million on any basis that you like to take it. I had said that on other occasions out in the country in western Canada, in the discussions in Great Britain and everywhere.
We started off all our negotiations by saying: We are not going to ask the British government to consider paying $330 million because there is no sound basis upon which you can ask for a payment of that kind. Having said that-and I think probably I should give the house the exact figures that were used because this is a matter that is going to be discussed a great deal-I said to them that so far as we were concerned on the most favourable terms to Great Britain we figured the actual difference to be $166 million.


An hon. Member:: How did you get that figure?


James Garfield Gardiner: I got that by taking the actual figures that the United States farmers got for their wheat during the period and comparing them with the actual figures that the farmers of this country got for their wheat.


An hon. Member:: Well-


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me complete it. Do not get me confused on this or you will be confused. Then I said that the average difference between the price that Canadian farmers had received and the price that United States farmers had received for fifteen years prior to the agreement-and the greater part of that time we had the open market, if you like to call it that, or any other name that you like to apply to the exchange marketing system-had been 15 cents higher to United States farmers than to Canadian farmers. Therefore I said it was quite a reasonable thing to say that under any other system it would have been 15 cents lower in Canada during the four years of the contract.
If you take that figure then you find there is $48 million that should be deducted from losses in the first two years. That brings us down to $118 million. I went on to say: We are not going to attempt to prove that any figure short of a round figure is a reasonable figure to be asking under the terms of an agreement such as this, and therefore we are of opinion that $100 million
fMr. Gardiner.]
would settle the bill. The British government was not inclined to accept that figure. The only figure that was ever used by them in discussing the matter which would indicate what they thought was a figure which could be proposed when we were discussing the 1949 settlement amounted to $70 million.
That figure resulted from a proposal that we accept $2 a bushel for our wheat for the year, but if the average price of wheat dropped down to $1.50 a bushel then the difference between the $2 and the $1.50 was to be considered a final settlement of the have regard to clause. That is $70 million. Fifty cents a bushel on 140 million bushels of wheat for 1949 was suggested as a possible full settlement. That sum was discussed and talked about. Finally we were in the position in connection with the matter where we had said: $100 million will settle it. Another proposal had been made that we might consider $70 million a settlement, and what I said at the end of my speech last night was that under the arrangement which was made for the final year there might have been a settlement of $35 million.
On the figures that were presented this afternoon by my friend across the way, the hon, member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), that amount would work down to $16 million, and I so used the figure last night. If you take into consideration the fact that we did get $1.98 a bushel for our wheat owing to the fact that there was devaluation of the pound, then the sum that we did obtain under that arrangement was $16 million and not $35 million. What I said last night was that we had indicated a willingness to accept the position that there had been an adjustment to the extent of $35 million resulting from the fact that the price under the international agreement was $1.80 and we got $2.05.
When you take all these facts into consideration, that we had asked $100 million, that they could claim, by having all the arguments on their side allowed, to have settled $35 million, there was still $65 million owing, and that $65 million has been paid. So far as the farmer is concerned it can be argued that the matter has been settled in the same manner as it would have been settled if Great Britain had made all the settlement that we asked them to make when we were in the midst of these discussions. I think that should be made clear to the house. I made it as clear as I thought I was going to be able to make it in forty minutes last night, and I left it in the position in which it was when I prepared the speech.

I think these facts should be placed before the house. I am not sure that these terms would have been accepted by the government because they did not get to the position where the British had accepted them. But it leaves me in the position where I must say to this house, to the country at large and to the farmers out west that the settlement we asked was $100 million, and there is an argument to the effect that $35 million of it was put up. That leaves $65 million to be paid by someone, and the government of Canada paid it. That is the exact position as it stands, and I do not think anyone needs to make any apologies for it. There can be an argument that it is not enough but there are arguments to the effect that it is enough. However, those can be put up at some other time.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, apparently there still exists a bit of misunderstanding between the two responsible ministers. When I spoke last night, and on other occasions, I quoted from Hansard where the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) distinctly stated on the 5th of June that no further settlement was expected from the United Kingdom. Apparently we did not get that cleared up, and will not do so until we receive the documents that have been requested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Until they are produced there will be this great difference.
Then in regard to the discourse by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as to the losses in the first two years of the agreement, I used the figure of $330 million, and I broke that down as between the two years. Those figures were based upon a statement to be found at page 5899 of Hansard for July 17, 1947, by the then minister of trade and commerce. Apparently now there is a difference between the Minister of Agriculture and that minister. When I was speaking last evening I said something about an amendment to the wheat board act which was passed in 1947, providing for the five year wheat pool, 1945 to 1950. It was retroactive legislation. Members of this party proposed an amendment to the legislation creating the five year pool, but we were voted down by supporters of this government. When the right hon. Minister of Agriculture was speaking last night he had this to say, at page 1059 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Souris a few moments ago referred to some resolution that was passed the next year, 1946-
Canadian Wheat Board Act
The minister said 1946, but I think that was what he referred to.
-and made reference to some statement that this government took the 1945 crop into the five year pool. This government did nothing of the kind.
Mr. Speaker, this government in 1945 on the 19th of September had the Minister of Trade and Commerce of that time get up in the house and announce a five year pool . . .
Then he went on to develop that to a considerable extent. I realize that they were operating then by order in council, but to prove that I was not as ridiculously wrong as the minister would have the house believe, and that I did have some idea of what I was talking about, 1^ looked up Hansard for 1947. On February 18 of that year, at page 575, the minister was introducing the amendment to the wheat board act, and in his remarks he said:
The general purposes of the proposed amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, are as follows:
1.	To authorize the regulation by the Canadian wheat board of the interprovincial and export trade in wheat for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the wheat contract with the United Kingdom;
2.	To make a corresponding adjustment in the pool period in relation to the wheat contract with the United Kingdom;
3.	To make necessary changes in the provisions fixing the price to be paid to producers of wheat by the Canadian wheat board;
4.	To permit the board with the special approval of the governor in council to deal in grains other-than wheat.
With respect to wheat, the proposed amendments authorize the regulation of the interprovincial and export trade in wheat by the board and the conduct of all such trading through the board until July 31, 1950. In regard to other grains, the amendment enables the board, with the approval of the governor in council, to buy, sell, and deal in other grains.
In addition to making provision for implementing the wheat contract with the United Kingdom, the proposed amendments provide for a five year pool period from August 1, 1945, until July 31, 1950, during which time producers of wheat are guaranteed a fixed initial price of $1.35 a bushel.
So I think it is clear enough that what I said was correct. Why the minister should ridicule that statement and say what he did, I do not know, but there is the proof.
Then there was the matter of these figures and how they were arrived at. When the minister was speaking he said that anyone making speeches in this house with the idea of encouraging some change by saying the farmers have lost $300 million or $600 million, as the notion takes him, is wasting his time. He went on to say that if we spoke with some of the farmers of western Canada before making such speeches we would know better because no one in the west believes it. Well, apparently a great many farmers and some farm organizations do believe it. Then at the

Canadian Wheat Board Act end of his argument the minister said that any such arguments were a ridiculous attempt to mislead the farmers. I resented that statement, and said that I usually gathered my own information and figured these amounts myself. Then he went on to say on page 1069:
I want to congratulate the hon. member upon getting them so close to those that the Free Press and the grain exchange worked out.
I think that statement was rather uncalled for. I presume these ministers realize that on March 6, not many days ago, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce tabled the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1949-50. In spite of the differences we find in this wheat discussion as between the two principal ministers concerned, I hope they will both believe figures taken from that report. It has not been released for distribution yet, but at page 19 there is a set of figures giving the high price, the low price and the average selling price for several crop years, as follows:
Average
Selling
Crop Year	High Low Price
1945-	46	
$1	55	$1	55	$1	551946-	47	
3	10	2	05	2	431947-	48	
3	45	2	37	2	881948-	49	
2	48	1	91	2	231949-	50	
2	41	2	04	2	16
If you add the average selling prices for those five years and divide them by five you get an average price for the five year pool of $2.17. I want to admit right away that prior to this we did not have any authentic information, and in previous arguments I had estimated that the average loss might be 50 cents a bushel. In all fairness I must say that this report, giving the average selling price for that period of $2.17, as compared with the figure given by the minister of $1.82 as the average paid the producers, shows a difference of 35 cents per bushel. On a total of 1,435 million bushels, in round figures, that gives a loss of over $502 million. That compares with the estimate of $500 million we have made as to the losses suffered. Those figures will be found in the wheat board report which will be printed and distributed to all members in this house in due course. I presume the minister will accept those figures. That gives you some idea of the difference in the loss between what the Minister of Agriculture states the farmer will receive when this $65 million is distributed along with what they have left in the kitty.
Then, as to the statement that these western farmers are probably satisfied, this afternoon the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) mentioned that the members of the Alberta legislature had voted unanimously
IMr. Ross (Souris).]
46 to nothing, Liberals and everyone else with no party line drawn, to urge the federal government to make a further substantial final payment to western farmers to pay for wheat delivered under the British agreement. The Saskatchewan federation of agriculture- and the Saskatchewan people will know more about their importance and membership than I do-decided yesterday that a delegation would come to Ottawa to claim a more equitable settlement of the five year wheat pool. Some mention has been made about $48 million to cover the losses on the sale of domestic wheat. I believe this covers a two-year period from March I, 1945, to February 17, 1947. The three prairie wheat pools-I do not think the Minister of Agriculture will say they are not important-met in Regina one day this week, and after some discussion decided to ask for an additional $48 million to cover the loss.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not on this deal.


James Arthur Ross: Not on this deal, but on the payment to the farmers for domestic losses.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is what we are talking about, not the other thing at all.


James Arthur Ross: I admit that up until now I have been discussing the other deal, but I think this is all part of the loss to these people because based on the pool about which we have been talking was created the policy for the price of domestic wheat sold to the people of this country. I think that is correct. The farmers were tied to it when other controls were taken off. If there is any doubt about it, I shall just read the report which appears in one of the daily newspapers. It reads as follows:
The three prairie wheat pools said the federal government should assume full responsibility for the obligation contained in the adjustment clause of the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement.
In addition, the pools called for payment of $48 million to cover losses which it said wheat growers suffered because of the government's wartime domestic wheat subsidy policy.
Boards of the wheat pools of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba met to consider the federal government's announcement last week that a final payment of 8-3 cents a bushel will be made under the five-year wheat pool. A statement said:
"The Canadian wheat pools are of the opinion that the final payment announced of 8-3 cents per bushel on 1,428,000 bushels of wheat, delivered by farmers to the 1945-49 pool, cannot be considered a satisfactory one.
"The proposed payment only partially meets what we believe to be the United Kingdom commitment under the 'have regard to' clause of the contract, and it should not be forgotten that during the period March 1, 1945, to February 17, 1947, approximately 160,000,000 bushels of wheat were used for domestic consumption and western farmers subsidized the consumer to the extent of 30 cents on every bushel of wheat used during the period.

"Producers subsidized the price from $1.55 down to $1.25 and the federal government subsidized it further from $1.25 to 77g cents. This policy provided a direct subsidy of $48 million to the Canadian consumer by the western farmer.
"In other words, the federal government adopted a subsidy policy for wheat and assessed $48 million of the cost to the wheat producers of western Canada.
"It is fully appreciated that the Canadian government has exercised strong pressure to obtain further funds from the British government in accordance with the terms of the wheat agreement between the two nations.
"It is regrettable that these efforts were unsuccessful, particularly in view of the high prices Great Britain was willing to pay to other countries and that Canada received from other countries during the same period.
"The wheat farmers of western Canada should not be made to suffer through the failure of the British government to fulfil the terms of the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement as it was interpreted to them by cabinet ministers of both the United Kingdom and Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask from what my hon. friend is reading?


James Arthur Ross: There was a little discussion about whether or not the farmers wanted this, so I said I would read this report from the meeting of the three pools in Regina. The report appears in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, March 8.


Mr. Studer:: What are you reading it for?


James Arthur Ross: What am I reading it for? I am trying to impress upon your Minister of Agriculture that there is some dissatisfaction amongst the farmers of western Canada. Last night he said he knew more about this than we who were speaking about it. I am trying to prove that the three western pools in the prairie provinces are important organizations.


Irvin William Studer: We have all read it.


James Arthur Ross: That is all right, but there are other people here besides you. After reading it, I would hope that the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), and these other hon. members from Saskatchewan, and from Manitoba, would get up here and represent the feelings of their constituents on this very important issue. I would not be surprised if some of those members, Mr. Speaker, have received a number of wires-


An hon. Member:: How many have you received?


James Arthur Ross: I said I would not be surprised if they have received some or some letters. It is their own business what they should do, but I would think probably they should get up here and express themselves as to whether they are entirely satisfied with this announcement of the final settlement, and advocate what they think it should be on behalf of those people who sent them here.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


William Earl Rowe: They may have been ordered not to speak.


James Arthur Ross: They may have been ordered not to speak; I cannot say anything about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member knows western people better than that.


James Arthur Ross: If it had not been for the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, I would not have read this press dispatch. I do think it should convince him that there is that dissatisfaction on the prairies. I do not think he will get up and say that these pool organizations are not important or that they do not represent a large group of wheat farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not ask for $330 million, and that is what I was talking about. They asked for $48 million.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to finish quoting this article.
While we appreciate the action of the government of Canada in undertaking to provide the sum of $65 million as part payment of the obligation to the growers under the contract, in justice to the western wheat growers the Canadian government should accept the full responsibility denied by the United Kingdom and in addition should repay the growers the $48 million subsidy to the Canadian consumer imposed by government policy.
I wonder if any hon. member from Saskatchewan will get up and deny that claim by the officials of the three prairie pools that they expect this added payment of 48 million over and above the 65 million.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: I think my hon. friend will not object to my asking a question?


James Arthur Ross: No, the hon. member is an old pal of mine.


Alan Carl Stewart: I will ask my hon. friend, since he is the spokesman for the Conservative party, whether he is advocating that the government of Canada-this is a direct question-should pay more than it is paying in connection with this proposition? Is the hon. member, on behalf of the Conservative party, or any other group in this house, suggesting that the government of Canada, taking the whole matter of the taxpayers of this country into consideration and also the war issue, should pay more than it is paying? I think my hon. friend, who was one of the reinforcements for my battalion, will be frank enough to say whether he advocates that?


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) will not have any doubt about what I have been advocating or where I stand before we are through with

Canadian Wheat Board Act this motion and resolution. I think my stand since I have been in this House of Commons has been very clear-


Mr. Winters:: What is it?


James Arthur Ross: -with respect to my views in support not only of the prairie farmers but of the farmers and agriculturalists of Canada from coast to coast.


Robert Henry Winters: What is it?


James Arthur Ross: If you read Hansard as carefully as one hon. member has suggested, I do not think you will have any difficulty at all in deciding what my views have been and what they are, and how I shall record my vote when the vote is taken here. I have expressed my views on almost every occasion in various sessions of parliament here and I shall be extremely disappointed if those members from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, who are supporters of the government, do not take adv-ntage of the opportunity to get up and either approve or disapprove of the measure now before us.


Alan Carl Stewart: Is that an answer to my question?


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, there are some other organizations in the three prairie provinces, and I am not as well acquainted with them and their membership as I am with the organizations and officials of the three prairie pools. But we have the united farmers of Alberta, of Saskatchewan, and now a considerable membership well organized in the province of Manitoba. I was rather amazed to read the press article here from the president-


An hon. Member:: Read it.


James Arthur Ross: I do not have to read it. You have read it. I will not read it into the record. These hon. members are great readers. One of them can be extremely vocal. We have a real orator here in the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). How they can keep him quiet in his seat is beyond me.


An hon. Member:: He is an orator.


James Arthur Ross: He surely is. I am sure that the people back home, knowing what an orator he is at community gatherings and dinner gatherings, will be extremely disappointed in reading Hansard not to find his name here, either advocating something on their behalf or ridiculing the proposals that are now before parliament. I am sure they will be greatly disappointed. However, to come back to this article they have all read, as they say in the press, the president of the three prairie unions-Mr. Phelps of Saskatchewan, I think -has advised their members at least not to cash the cheques on the basis of the final

announcement so far by this government. I do not know whether they are satisfied or not. I do not know how serious those people are; because quite frankly, if there are any of them who really do not want to oash their cheques, if they will endorse them and mail them to the hon. member for Souris, I can assure them that they will be put to splendid use.


Alan Carl Stewart: Will you cash them?


James Arthur Ross: I think I will have to. My banker will see that I do. I will not have much choice about it. *


Alan Carl Stewart: Will you take the usual Winnipeg grain exchange deduction?


James Arthur Ross: I have not dealt with the Winnipeg grain exchange for quite a while. I do not know how well the hon. member for Yorkton knows those of the Winnipeg grain exchange. But if he feels at all sorry for those fellows, I can assure him that there is no danger of their starving while this government is in power; not a bit of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: They would have got most of the $330 million that you are talking about.


James Arthur Ross: At least as long as this government is in power; from any information that we who were members of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization have been able to obtain, they will be fairly well taken care of by this government as long as they are in power. So my hon. friend need not worry about hardship on the part of these poor chaps, the brokers of the grain exchange, or what they will be asked to give up about this business. True enough, you read statements here in Ottawa leading you to believe that they are having a pretty hungry time of it, and that as far as this government is concerned there is no dealing with the grain exchange or anything of that kind.


An hon. Member:: Is there not?


James Arthur Ross: I am not saying that. I am saying that you would be led: to believe that. However, that does not happen to be the situation. Since the hon. member has raised that issue, may I say that at another time when we had the officials of the Canadian wheat board appear before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, we were endeavouring to run this thing down and to find out if they were really having a difficult time as these ministers would have the country believe, and this is what we discovered. I am not sure now of the exact number, but there were ' ninety or a hundred brokers who were actually being paid fees, out of the farmers' money, through the Canadian wheat board,

where no service whatever was rendered according to the chairman of the Canadian wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, what year was that meeting?


James Arthur Ross: If my memory serves me correctly, it would be in the year 1942.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, that is a long time ago.


James Arthur Ross: Is that satisfactory?


James Garfield Gardiner: You know what they were doing. It was produced here in a committee.


James Arthur Ross: Certainly I know; at least I know. But when we asked-my colleague here for Dufferin-Simcoe-and an hon. member from Saskatchewan moved a motion asking for a return giving the names of these brokers and the amounts of moneys paid to them, and the terms of the reference provided for all of this information and very much more-believe it or not, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the hon. member who is his parliamentary assistant at the present time, and every supporter of this government voted against giving us that information at that time. Is that not rather odd?


James Garfield Gardiner: You got it eventually.


James Arthur Ross: We never got it through that committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly you got it.


James Arthur Ross: Where and when? Can the minister tell me where there is any record of our getting it? Will he tell me that?


James Garfield Gardiner: My memory of it is that it was fully discussed before the committee. I took part in the discussion myself.


James Arthur Ross: You say that there was a list of the names and the sums paid them placed before that committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: Maybe not a list of the names, but the whole situation was discussed.


James Arthur Ross: In generalities, it was discussed. But we were refused a list of the names of the brokers and the amounts paid to them by the Canadian wheat board, out of the funds of the farmers themselves. You were having your government supporters say: No,
Canadian Wheat Board Act no grain exchange, nothing of that sort. So the hon. member for Yorkton need not worry much about the members of the Winnipeg grain exchange.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


James Arthur Ross: And when he wants to talk about the Winnipeg grain exchange, and some people are extremely vocal about it, I would remind him that I think of all the living members of this House of Commons, I am perhaps the only one who moved a resolution to close up the Winnipeg grain exchange. I was out of order. I was young and green in this house, and I was out of order. But nevertheless, I am recorded in Hansard with the late then hon. member for Qu'Appelle, as having moved such a resolution. You have lots of members talking throughout the country saying they are in favour of doing away with the Winnipeg grain exchange. But the hon. member for Souris actually went that far at that time.


Mr. Dewar:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Arthur Ross: Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I adjourn the debate?
On motion of Mr. Ross (Souris) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) expects to table the estimates and refer them to the committee of supply.
After considering the resolution of the Minister of Finance concerning the Foreign Exchange Control Act, we will make the formal motion to go into committee of supply to call four departments, and have them ready for consideration on Thursdays and Fridays. After that we will continue with Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935. Following that, we shall take Bill No. 130, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act; and after that, Bill No. 79, respecting Indians. After that we will adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1129
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 12, 1951